EPA542-R-98-012
September 1998
In Situ Treatment Technologies
(Soil Extraction Thermal
Volume 8
z
UJ
CD
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtabie
-------
-------
Case Studies:
In Situ Soil Treatment
Technologies (Soil Vapor
Extraction, Thermal Processes)
Volume 8
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
September 1998
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency
thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of 14 case studies of in situ soil treatment technology projects prepared by
federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons learned from technology applications.
They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance which should lead to greater confidence
in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider
cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable member
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S.
Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These
agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized
from greater coordination.
The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology in a multi-volume set listed below.
Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-6, and Abstracts, Volumes 1 and 2, were published previously, and
contain 54 case studies. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, and Abstracts, Volume 3, were
published in September 1998. Volumes 7-13 cover a wide variety of technologies, including in situ soil
treatment technologies such as soil vapor extraction and thermal processes (Volume 8). The 14 soil vapor
extraction case studies in this report include completed full-scale remediations and large-scale field
demonstrations. In the future, the set will grow as agencies prepare additional case studies.
1995 Series
Volume 1: Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995; PB95-182911
Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995; PB95-182929
Volume 3: SoU Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995; PB95-182937
Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005;
March 1995; PB95-182945
1997 Series
Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997; PB97-177554
Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies, EPA-542-R-97-009;
; July 1997; PB97-177562
1998 Series
Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,
Thermal Desorption), EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998
Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes),
EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998
m
-------
1998 Series (continued)
Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA-542-R-98-013;
September 1998
Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants), EPA-542-R-98-014;
September 1998
Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-015;
September 1998
Volume 12: On-Site Incineration, EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998
Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous
Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998
Abstracts
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711
Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570
Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Accessing Case Studies
The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site provides links to
individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete
a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick lists for media treated,
contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search function provides users
with basic information about the case studies, and allows them to view or download abstracts and case
studies that meet their requirements.
Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site. Some of the
case studies are also available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.
In addition, a limited number of hard copies are available free of charge by mail from NCEPI (allow 4-6
weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
INTRODUCTION; 1
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION CASE STUDIES 11
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, Area A,
Onslow County, North Carolina 13
Soil Vapor Extraction at Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona 21
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5,
Chesterfield County, Virginia 31
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Texas Tower
Site, Ft. Greely, Alaska 39
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington 57
Soil Vapor Extraction at Fort Richardson Building 908 South, Anchorage, Alaska 103
Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5, Holloman AFB, New Mexico 123
Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, Cupertino, California 147
Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration atNAS North Island, Site 9 159
Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
Seymour, Indiana 193
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at OU1, Shaw AFB,
South Carolina 213
Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, Upper Merion Township,
Pennsylvania 237
THERMAL PROCESSES CASE STUDIES 257
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)™ Process at Brodhead Creek
Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 259
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site,
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 279
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. Previously, the Roundtable published a six-volume series of case study reports.
At this time, the Roundtable is publishing seven additional volumes of case study reports, primarily focused
on soil and groundwater cleanup.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The case studies were
prepared based on recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures
are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998). (The October 1998 guide supersedes the
original Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects, published in March 1995.)
The case studies present available cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts.
They are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and contain information on site background and
setting, contaminants and media treated, technology, cost and performance, and points of contact for the
technology application. The studies contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences in the
availability of data and information. Because full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted primarily for the
purpose of technology evaluation, data on technology cost and performance may be limited.
The case studies in this volume describe 14 applications of soil vapor extraction (SVE) and in situ thermal
processes. These include 10 full-scale and one pilot-scale SVE applications used to treat soil contaminated
with chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons. Three of these applications involved treatment or
containment of both contaminated soil and groundwater through a combination of SVE, air sparging,
groundwater extraction, and/or in situ bioremediation technologies. One case study describes a photolytic
technology demonstrated for treatment of contaminated vapors from an SVE system. In addition, this
volume describes two in situ thermal treatment applications, one used to recover free and residual coal tar,
and one that was a demonstration of an in situ process to desorb PCBs from soil.
-------
Table 1 provides a summary including information on technology used, contaminants and media treated,
and project duration for the 14 applications in this volume. This table also provides highlights about each
application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media treated and quantity
of contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some projects, and identifies
key factors potentially affecting technology cost. (The column showing the calculated unit costs for
treatment provides a dollar value per quantity of soil treated and/or contaminant removed, as appropriate.)
Cost data are shown as reported in the case studies and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common
year basis. The costs should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the project was in progress
(shown on Table 1 as project duration).
While a summary of project costs is useful, it may be difficult to compare costs for different projects
because of unique site-specific factors. However, by including a recommended reporting format, the
Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of costs to make data comparable across projects. In
addition, the Roundtable is working to capture information in case study reports that identify and describe
the primary factors that affect cost and performance of a given technology. Key factors that potentially
affect project costs for soil vapor extraction and in situ thermal projects include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules, matrix
characteristics such as soil classification, clay content and/or particle size distribution, moisture content, air
permeability, porosity, depth and thickness of zone of interest, total organic carbon, presence of NAPLs,
and other site conditions.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)
' "' ' '
' S f '
•" y _, i
*' , ''
~ ' ' ' $ f ?% " ''
V '•'.''
- Sife Name, State (TecbnologyJ \ 5 ;'
' Frfadl|)alC«BlaBiiinaiaii*
|
I-
S
8*
i
i
i
'•/',', ,
Mfidia
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes) (continued)
f f
-•"',,,? , ;
•- ** ', ^ * * ' /
' " ' '' '
,
, , ^teSwra^StefeCr«clffl«!fof|r>
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
(Photolytic Destruction)
Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site,
IN (Soil Vapor Extraction)
Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC (Soil Vapor Extraction and
Groundwater Containment)
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
Principal Contaminants*
,1
I,
•»'
e
•
•
•
•
i
I
•
&
I
'm
I
£*-
«>
'!
o>
«
~|M
<&
, '' -/'< ' ,
/ ,
' Me«ia.
,
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes) (continued)
/ "
' <• ; '",
Site ff8Ri% State (TfieiiaolQgy)
Principal Contaminants*
&
If
j «
1
1*
U
$
1
'
1
ii
13
<**
bi
!S
<**
I
*
!
I
'
*
f f
<(^J5?^W
"' /c
',
,'j
JJlH"#ti(JH / :
,{'*'',
>,
', '' " ,k "'
- ' 'm$^
Thermal Processes
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site, PA
(Contained Recovery of Oily Waste)
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, MO
(In Situ Thermal Desorption)
•
•
Free Product - coal
tar (1,500 gallons)
Soil (52 yd3)
7/95 - 6/96
4/21/97 - 6/1/97
Recover free and residual coal tar
using the CROW™ process
Demonstrate the performance of in situ
thermal desorption to treat PCB-
contaminated soil
' Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
; SifeBTwajse-, State (I*e&»olog$
Technology
' €o$t
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
Site Naine, S&tfe peEano!ogj|
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South,
AK
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5, MM
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site, CA
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
NAS North Island, Site 9, CA
(Photolytic Destruction)
Seymour Recycling Corporation
Superfund Site, IN (Soil Vapor
Extraction)
Shaw AFB, OU 1, SC (Soil Vapor
Extraction and Groundwater
Containment)
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, PA
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
,, ,lTe£6iBisik)g^ i
' '- Cast$p
Total (for entire
RA): $305,053
Total (for
technology):
$252,200
Total: $610,000
Total: $770,000
C: $550,000
0: $220,000
Total: $93,726
(for
demonstration)
Total: Not
provided
C: $1,200,000
0: $568,500
(total)
$18,000-57,500
(monthly)
Total:
$43,400,000
•- Quantity (tf '
Media Treated
4,600yd3
9,500yd3
280,000yd3
1,151 Ibs of VOCs
200,000 yd3
30,000 ft2
30,000 yd3
Qiiafctfiyaf
CDiifamuiaBt
Stemmed
Not .provided
44,000 Ibs
3,000 Ibs
Not provided
30,000 Ibs
518,000 Ibs (2,560-
94,800 Ibs/month)
200,000 Ibs
" f / '
CaJcifla^ Cost for ,
' l*fca.tiaejtt**
$55/yd3
$64/yd3
$14/lb
$3/yd3
$260/lb
Full-scale projected as
$3.77/lb
(only for treatment of
extracted vapors)
Not calculated
0: $1.09/lb
$l,400/yd3
$220/lb
'i '
K^Fa«aarsj*ofeiitia% Affecting •
IfetlmofegyCosfe*** 1
No supplemental technology was
needed for air emissions
Use of fiberglass piping caused
increase in technology cost
Unit cost per volume of soil treated
was kept low because economies-of-
scale in treating a relatively large site;
also cleanup was achieved within the
time frame predicted for treatment
Projected costs reflect the first
demonstration of this technology
Unit costs could not be calculated;
separate costs not provided for the
complex activities at this site (a
combination of soil, groundwater, and
other remedial activities)
Use of pulsed system reduced
operating costs; report provides data
only for operating costs
Several conditions at the site limited
the diffusion rate for VOCs (e.g.,
geology),, and the technology vendor
implemented 14 enhancements to
improve system performance
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
$$teN*itt^4fc^C&i$^f
CHaft8ji»a»t
lt«woy«sd
i CaJeyJafetfGtaifor
I lc*a*»«8t**
K<^ Bietaw Foi^i^fAfiHtlB^,
fato>logyC0?Js***,
Thermal Processes
Brodhead Creek Superftmd Site, PA
(Contained Recovery of Oily Waste)
Missouri Electric Works Superfund
Site, MO
(to Situ Thermal Desorption)
Total: $1,200,000
Not provided
Not provided
52yd3
1,500 gals
Not provided
$800/gal
Full-scale projected as
$120-200/yd3 for "most
standard sites"
Elevated costs due to complexity of
contaminants (coal tar); problems
•with methodology used to estimate
amount of coal tar removed resulted
in system being required to operate
longer
Factors affecting full-scale costs
include the moisture content of the
soil, and the extent and depth of
contamination, which affects the
number and depth of wells required
for treatment
Technology Cost*
C = Capital costs
O = Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
Calculated based on sum of capital and O&M costs, divided by quantity treated or
removed. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of costs or
quantity treated or removed was not available. Unit costs calculated based on both
quantity of media treated and quantity of contaminant removed, as appropriate.
For full-scale remediation projects, this identifies factors affecting actual technology costs. For demonstration-scale projects, this identifies generic factors which would
affect costs for a future application using this technology.
-------
In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)
Case Studies
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
10
-------
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
CASE STUDIES
ll
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
12
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A, Onslow County, North Carolina
13
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp Lejeune Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A, Onslow County, North Carolina
Site Name:
Camp LeJeune Military
Reservation,
Site 82, Area A
Location:
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds:
- Trichloroethene (TCE)
- Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
- Benzene
Period of Operation:
April 7 - December 21,1995
(March 29 - April 7,1995 - system
startup and optimization performed)
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Jim Dunn
Project Manager,
MCB Camp LeJeune
OHM Remediation Services, Inc.
5445 Triangle Parkway, Suite 400
Norcross, GA 30092
(770) 734-8072
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Remedial Project
Manager:
Katherine H. Landman
MCB Camp LeJeune
Atlantic Division, Code 1823
LANTDIV
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699
(757) 322-4818
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction:
- Eight vertical vapor extraction
wells and one horizontal air
injection well
- 32 soil probe clusters
- Vapor-liquid separator; vapor-
phase carbon vessel
- One positive displacement
vacuum blower for extraction wells
- Range of total system flow rates -
268 to 499 cfm, with an average of
409 cfin; range of flow rates at the
well heads - 22 to 132 cfm.
- Well head vacuums ranged from
3.9 inches to 7.0 inches Hg, with
an average of 5.8 inches Hg.
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD signed: September 24,1993
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Gena Townsend
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-3415
Phone: (404)562-8538
Waste Source: Disposal of waste
drums and debris
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 17,500 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE application
using a combination of vertical
extraction and horizontal injection
wells
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The ROD identified the following cleanup goals for soil: TCE - 32.2 ^ug/kg, PCE - 10.5 jug/kg,
benzene-5.4//g/kg.
No air emission standards were specified for this application, however the State of North Carolina required
the facility to provide documentation about potential air emissions for this application and to include carbon
treatment for air emissions.
14
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeime Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A, Onslow County, North Carolina (continued)
Results:
- Results of confirmation soil boring samples showed TCE and benzene at nondetectable levels in all soil boring
samples. PCE was reported at levels below the cleanup goal of 10.5 /ug/kg in all t»ut one sample.
- According to LANTDIV, EPA approved shutdown of the system because the single exception was slightly
above the soil remedial goals and the contaminated groundwater under the area of concern was being addressed
by a pump-and-treat system.
- For the discharge stack, concentrations ranged as follows: TCE - ND to 2.2 /^g/L; PCE - ND to 147.4 //g/L;
benzene - ND to 10.2 fj.g/L; and ethylbenzene - ND to 7.4 j
Cost:
- Total cost of $469,949 was expended for remedial activities at Area A including $222,455 for capital costs and
$247,485 for operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
- The total cost of $469,940 corresponds to a unit cost of $27 per cubic yard (yd3) for 17,500 yd3 of soil treated.
Description:
Camp LeJeune Military Reservation (also known as Marine Corps Base Camp LeJeune), established in 1941, is a
170-square-mile installation near Jacksonville, North Carolina, that provides housing, training, logistical, and
administrative support for Fleet Marine Force Units. Site 82 is was used for waste disposal and, hi 1994, drums
and debris were removed from the site. Area A was a portion of Site 82 at which residual soil and groundwater
contamination remained after removal of drums and debris. Soil at Area A was contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOC), primarily TCE, PCE, and benzene. The ROD specified SVE for remediation of
contaminated soil.;
The SVE system used at Area A included eight vertical vapor extraction wells (installed to a depth of 15 to 16
feet bgs), one horizontal ah- injection well (horizontal displacement of 330 feet; total depth of 15 feet bgs), 32
soil probe clusters (for measurement of-subsurface vapors; each cluster consisted of one shallow and one deep
probe at approximately 6 feet and 12 feet bgs, respectively), a vapor phase separator, a vapor-phase carbon vessel
(granular activated carbon), and a vacuum extraction unit (VEU) that included a positive displacement blower
that was used to apply vacuum to the extraction wells. The results of confirmation sampling showed that TCE
and benzene met the cleanup goals in all soil boring samples. For 23 of 24 soil boring samples, PCE was
reported at levels below the cleanup goal of 10.5 pg/kg. For one soil boring sample, PCE was reported at 29
Mg/kg compared to the cleanup goal of 10.5 ywg/kg. According to LANTDIV, EPA approved shutdown of the
system because the single exception was slightly above the soil remedial goals and the contaminated
groundwater under the area of concern was being addressed by a pump-and-treat system.
According to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Remedial Project Manager, the SVE system at Area A
was cost-effective. Significant other work was being performed at the site, including the construction and
operation of a 500-gallon-per-mhiute (gpm) pump-and-treat plant to treat groundwater contaminated with VOCs,
and helped to keep costs down because overhead and operations costs were shared. In addition, an on-site
laboratory was being used for other analytical work on the base, and the shared cost of the use of that facility also
helped to keep the cost of the SVE application low.
15
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Soil Vapor Extraction at Camp LeJeune Military Reservation,
Site 82, Area A
Onslow County, North Carolina
Summary Information [1.2.6]
Camp LeJeune Military Reservation (also known as Marine
Corps Base Camp LeJeune), established in 1941, is a 170-
square-mile installation near Jacksonville, North Carolina, that
provides housing, training, logistical, and administrative
support for Fleet Marine Force Units. Site 82 is located
adjacent to Storage Lot 203. Lot 203 was operated from the
1940s to the 1980s for the Defense Reutilization Marketing
Organization (DRMO) as a military scrap dealing and disposal
area. Site 82 was a wooded area that also was used for
disposal.
Drums and debris, both on the surface and buried, were
removed from Site 82 in 1994. Area A was a portion of Site
82 at which residual soil and groundwater contamination
remained after removal of drums and debris. Area A also is
referred to as Operable Unit 2 (OU 2), Site 82, Area of
Concern 1, Area A. No additional information is provided
about OU 2 or Area of Concern 1.
Soil at Area A was found to be contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethene (TCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), and benzene. Results of analysis of
soil borings taken in July 1994 showed concentrations of TCE
as high as 6.5 micrograms per kilogram (//g/kg) and PCE as
high as 1,800 fig/kg. Benzene was not detected at levels above
analytical quantification limits.
In the record of decision (ROD) for OU 2, signed September
24, 1993, soil vapor extraction (SVE) was selected for
remediation of contaminated soil. From April 7 through
December 21, 1995, approximately 17,500 cubic yards (yd3)
of contaminated soil were treated by a full-scale soil vapor
extraction (SVE) system application at Area A.
Timeline fl. 21
CERCLIS ID Number: NC6170022580
Lead: DoD - Atlantic Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering
Command (LANTDIV),
representing the Navy and
Marine Corps and DoD
September 24, 1993
December 1994
February 1995
March 29 - April 7, 1995
April 7 - December 21, 1995
October 12 - 30, 1995
February 2, 1996
Final ROD signed for OU 2,
including Area A
System construction awarded
Final work plan approved;
construction commenced
System startup and optimization
performed
SVE system operation
conducted
System temporarily shut down
while awaiting results of
analysis of confirmation samples
Final soil confirmation sampling
performed
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment [1. 8]
The Camp LeJeune site is underlain by five distinct sand horizons
of variable thicknesses. The sand units typically are fine- to
medium-grained and moderately sorted, contain traces of clay and
silt, and extend to the water table at approximately 18 feet below
ground surface (bgs).
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics at Area A that
affected the cost or performance of this technology and the values
measured for each during site characterization.
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Classification:
'Value ,
Not reported
Clay Content and/or Sand with trace of clay and silt
Particle Size Distribution:
Moisture Content:
Air Permeability:
Porosity:
Total Organic Carbon:
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids:
Not measured
1.2to2.8xlO-7cm2
Not measured
Not measured
Not identified
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
-------
"Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, Area A
Treatment Technology Description f 1.21
The SVE system used at Area A included eight vertical vapor
extraction wells (installed to a depth of 15 to 16 feet bgs), one
horizontal ah- injection well (horizontal displacement of 330
feet; total depth of 15 feet bgs), 32 soil probe clusters (for
measurement of subsurface vapors; each cluster consisted of
one shallow and one deep probe at approximately 6 feet and
12 feet bgs, respectively), a vacuum extraction unit (VEU),
one vapor-phase carbon vessel (initially loaded with 4,000
pounds (Ibs) of vapor-phase granular activated carbon), a
piping and manifold system, a diesel-powered generator, and a
water storage tank (20,000 gallon). The VEU included a
positive displacement vacuum blower rated at 1500 cubic feet
per minute (cfm) at 15 inches Hg, a vapor-liquid separator, a
liquid transfer pump, paniculate filters, a silencer, a discharge
stack, and a control panel. The positive displacement blower
was used to apply a vacuum to the eight vertical vapor
extraction wells.
Extracted soil vapors were routed through the piping and
manifold system to a vapor-liquid separator to remove liquids
entrained in the vapor stream. They then were treated with
activated carbon before they were reinjected through the
horizontal well or released to the atmosphere. Extracted
liquids were pumped to a water storage tank and subsequently
to the nearby groundwater treatment plant at Site 82.
Flow rates at the well heads ranged from 22 to 132 cfm. Total
system flow rates ranged from 268 to 499 cfm, with an
average of 409 cfm. Well head vacuums ranged from 3.9
inches to 7.0 inches Hg, with an average of 5.8 inches Hg.
Startup and optimization was conducted from March 29
through April 7,1995. From April 4 through December 21,
1995, the system logged a total of 5,889 hours and an on-line
time of 85 percent. The system was shut down from October
12 to October 30,1995, while awaiting results of laboratory
analysis of confirmation samples that were collected on
October 4,1995. No modifications of the system were
reported by the vendor.
Listed below are the key operating parameters that affected
the cost or performance of this technology and the values
measured for each.
Operating Parameters
Performance Information H. 2. 71
The ROD identified the following cleanup goals for soil:
ParaHetjer.
Value,,
Air Flow Rate:, 266-499 cfm (average 409
cfm)
Operating Vacuum:
3.9-7.0 inches Hg (average
5.8 inches Hg)
TCE - 32.2
PCE - 10.5 fig/kg
• Benzene - 5.4 fig/kg
Data were provided for TCE, PCE, and benzene for soil borings
taken from 24 sampling locations, 8 locations and 3 depths per
location, ranging in depth from 2 to 16 feet bgs. Soil boring
samples were collected six times during this application (July
1994, July 1995, August 1995, October 1995, December 1995, and
February 1996).
The results of analyses of soil borings collected before operation
of the SVE system (July 1994) for contaminants exceeding the
cleanup goals showed concentrations of PCE as high as 1,800
A«g/kg. Benzene was nondetected (ND) and TCE levels were
detected at levels less than the cleanup goal. Results of analyses of
soil borings taken after startup (July 1995) showed maximum
concentrations of TCE (101 ,ug/kg), PCE (16.3 vgfkg), and
benzene (132 Mg/kg) higher than the cleanup goals.
After treatment was complete, confirmation samples showed TCE
and benzene at nondetectable levels in all soil boring Samples. For
23 of 24 soil boring samples, PCE was reported at levels below the
cleanup goal of 10.5 /wg/kg. For one soil boring sample, PCE was
reported at 29 fj.g/kg, compared to the cleanup goal of 10.5 yug/kg.
According to LANTDIV, EPA approved shutdown of the system
because the single exception was slightly above the soil remedial
goals and the contaminated groundwater under the area of concern
was being addressed by a pump-and-treat system.
Sampling data for extracted vapor were provided for PCE, TCE,
benzene, and ethylbenzene for the total system and the discharge
stack for sampling events conducted from April through August
1995. For the total system, concentrations ranged as follows: TCE
- 44 to 583 micrograms per liter Cug/1); PCE - ND to 10.5 Atg/1;
benzene - ND to 18 //g/1; and ethylbenzene - ND to 17.5 pg/l. For
the discharge stack, concentrations ranged as follows: TCE - ND
to 2.2 Atg/1; PCE - ND to 147.4 Atg/1; benzene - ND to 10.2 Mg/1;
and ethylbenzene - ND to 7.4 yug/1. No air emission standards
were specified for this application, however the State of North
Carolina required the facility to provide documentation about
potential air emissions for this application and to include carbon
treatment for air emissions.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office !
17
-------
'Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, Area A
Performance Data Quality p.
For this application, quality assurance activities included use
of trip blanks, field blanks, and duplicate samples. Data
reported on July 18, 1995, and August 23, 1995, for field gas
chromatography (GC) analysis of soil samples showed
elevated levels of benzene in the soil that had not been seen
previously at the site. According to LANTDIV, additional
investigations and subsequent sampling events indicated that
the anomalous levels were caused by inaccuracy in laboratory
data, rather than elevated concentrations of benzene in the
soils at the site.
Cost Information T2.3.8]
Actual cost information provided by Atlantic Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command indicated that a total of
$469,949 was expended for remedial activities at Area A. The
total consists of $222,455 for capital costs and $247,485 for
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The total cost of
$469,940 corresponds to a unit cost of $27 per cubic yard
(yd3) for 17,500 yd3 of soil treated. No information was
provided about the mass of contaminant removed, and
therefore no unit cost per pound of contaminant was
calculated for this application.
Actual Project Costs
gCost Element
JSSL.
Operation & Maintenance
O&M (direct labor, equipment rental,
fuel/oil/lube, final report preparation)
Analytical (related to technology
performance, not compliance
monitoring)
- SVE area sampling
O&M Subtotal
Disposal of Residuals
Analytical (related to compliance
monitoring, not technology
performance)
Total Project Cost
Observations and Lessons Learned [1]
1
229,226
18,259
247,485
Included in total
0
469,940
};* ' 'J'costltei^ii-llilll
Capital
Equipment and Appurtenances
- Injection well
- System installation
- Equipment and installation
(includes extraction wells)
Site Work/Preparation
- Magnetic survey
- Clear and grub work
- Construction of access road
Startup and Testing
- System start-up
Management Support
- Proposal estimate
Capital Subtotal
77,682
26,741
66,768
2,587
21,335
7,485
1,344
18,513
222,455
The fact that significant other work was being performed at the
site, including the construction and operation of a 500-gallon-per-
minute (gpm) pump-and-treat plant to treat groundwater
contaminated with VOCs, helped to keep costs down because
overhead and operations costs were shared. In addition, an on-site
laboratory was being used for other analytical work on the base,
and the shared cost of the use of that facility also helped to keep
the cost of the SVE application low.
The SVE system at Area A combined a horizontal ah- injection
well with vertical extraction wells to remediate soil contaminated
with chlorinated solvents, benzene, and ethylbenzene. The system
met soil cleanup goals in less than 10 months of operation.
According to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Remedial
Project Manager, the SVE system at Area A was cost-effective.
Contact Information
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA RPM:
Gena Townsend
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-3415
Phone: (404)562-8538
E-mail: townsend.gena@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
-------
"Camp LeJeune Military Reservation, Site 82, Area A
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Remedial Project
Manager:
Katherine H. Landman*
MCB Camp LeJeune
Atlantic Division, Code 1823
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (LANTDIV)
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, VA 23511-2699
Telephone: (757)322-4818
Facsimile: (757)322-4805
E-mail: landmankh@efdlant.navfac.navy.mil
Vendor:
Jim Dunn
Project Manager, MCB Camp LeJeune
OHM Remediation Services, Inc.
5445 Triangle Parkway, Suite 400
Norcross, GA 30092
Telephone: (770)734-8072
Facsimile: (770)453-7743
E-mail: dunn@ohm.com
* Primary contact for this application
References ;
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Environmental Quality Division. 1997. Facsimile
Transmission from Kate Landman, LANTDIV, to Michael
Geertson, Tetra Tech EM Inc., MCB Camp LeJeune Site
82 SVE System Info. December 4.
2. OHM Remediation Services Corp. 1996. Draft Final
Report for Soil Remediation of Site 82 AOC-1, Area A,
MCB Camp LeJeune, North Carolina (Two Volumes).
Prepared for Department of the Navy. September
3. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
1998. Facsimile Transmission from Maritza
Montegross/Kate Landman, LANTDIV, to Michael
Geertson, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Soil Vapor Extraction
Application at Camp LeJeune. March 27.
4. EPA. 1997. Innovative Treatment Technologies
Database, Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition). August.
5. Baker Environmental, Inc. 1993. Final Record of Decision for
Operable Unit No. 2 (Sites 6, 9, and 82), Marine Corps Base,
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. Prepared for Department of
the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command. September 24.
6. EPA. 1997. Camp LeJeune Military Reservation Fact Sheet.
Internet document summarizing the history and cleanup of the
Camp LeJeune Military Reservation Superfund Site. June.
.
7. Record of Telephone Conversation. 1998. Richard J.
Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Katherine Landman, MCB
Camp Lejeune. Review and Comment on Draft C&P Summary
Report. August 25.
8. Record of Telephone Conversation. 1998. Richard J.
Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Jim Dunn, OHM. Review
and Comment on Draft C&P Summary Report. September 8.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Terra
Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office !
19
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
20
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona
21
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona
Site Name:
Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
Location:
Arizona
Contaminants:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
- Total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) was detected in soil at levels
up to 320,000 ppm
- Benzene was detected in soil at
levels up to 110 ppm
Period of Operation:
September 1995 - July 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor/Consultant:
Montgomery Watson
JMM, Consulting Engineers
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
- Six vapor extraction wells, a
blower system, moisture separator,
thermal oxidizer, and ah- treatment
system
- Two 460 cubic inch internal
combustion engines (ICE) were
used to create the vacuum. The
extracted vapors were burned as
fuel in the ICEs, with supplemental
fuel added as contaminant
concentrations were reduced.
- System operated at an average
flow rate of 123 serin
- System removed about 1,200
Ib/day of contaminant
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE application to
remove TPH from soil; extracted
vapors used as fuel for ICEs.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 63,000 cubic yards
- Contamination extended to a depth of about 260 feet (ft) below ground
surface (bgs)
- Sandy clay with interbedded gravels and sands in upper 260 ft
- Caliche (cemented silts and clays) layer at about 240 ft bgs impeded
vertical migration of contamination
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The objective of the SVE system was to remove contamination in the soil as cost-effectively as possible to
prevent contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.
Results:
- Performance results for the system were reported for the first 16 months of operation (through December
1996)
- After 16 months of operations, the system had removed 585,700 pounds (Ibs) of total volatile hydrocarbons
(TVH); monthly contaminant removal rates ranged from 14,700 to 67,800 Ibs.
No concentration data for contaminants was reported.
22
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (continued)
Cost:
- Total capital cost (estimated)-$162,000
- Total O&M cost after 22 months of operation - September 1995 through July 1997 - $45,000
- Report also includes monthly O&M costs for the first 16 months of operation - ranged from $1,818 to
$2,602/month for a total of $32,700 through December 1996
- Data on cumulative O&M costs versus cumulative total volatile hydrocarbons removed showed that the cost
per unit of contaminant began to increase in October 1996. The ICE engine was reconfigured with a smaller
engine to reduce the need for supplemental fuel and thereby reduced the overall operating costs.
- The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed after 16 months of operation was $0.06/lb.
Description: '•
Site ST-35 at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), located in Arizona, was the site of a spill of JP-4 fuel.
An estimated 63,000 cubic yards of soil were contaminated to a depth of about 260 ft bgs. TPH and benzene
were detected in the^soils at levels as high as 320,000 ppm and 110 ppm, respectively. In addition, benzene was
detected in groundwater at levels as high as 510 ppb, and there was a 1 to 3 inch layer of free product floating on
the groundwater. Ah SVE system was used to remediate the soil contamination at the site. The SVE operational
objectives were to remove contamination at the site as cost-effectively as possible to prevent contamination of
the surrounding soil and groundwater. No specific contaminant goals were identified in the report.
The SVE system consisted of six vapor extraction wells, a blower system, moisture separator, thermal oxidizer,
and air treatment system. Vacuum was created using two 460 cubic inch ICEs. Extracted soil gas was burned as
fuel in the ICEs; when contaminant concentrations in the soil gas were reduced, supplemental fuel was used to
operate the ICEs. The SVE system was operated from September 1995 through July 1997. Performance data on
amount of contaminant removed were available through December 1996. After 16 months of operation, a total
of 585,700 Ibs of TVH were removed. Monthly TVH removal rates ranged from 14,700 Ibs to 67,800 Ibs. In
October 1996, the contaminant removal rate began to level off. The ICE was then reconfigured to reduce the
need for supplemental fuel. System performance was reported to have unproved following the reconfiguration,
and the system was reported to be meeting its operational objectives.
The total capital cost for the system was $162,000. O&M costs through July 1997 were $45,000. Monthly
O&M data were provided for the first 16 months of operation (through December 1996) and ranged from $1,818
to $2,602/month for a total of $32,700. Monthly O&M costs per unit of contaminant removed ranged from about
$0.03/lb to $0.16/lb. From July to October 1996, there was a steady decrease in the O&M cost per Ib of
contaminant removed. However, the O&M cost began to increase in October 1996 at which time the ICE engine
was reconfigured to reduce the need for supplemental fuel. The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant
removed after 16 months of operation was $0.06/lb.
23
-------
SVE at Site ST-35
Davis-Monthan AFB
Site Background
This section focuses on the SVE system located
at Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB.
Performance of the groundwater system is not
evaluated. A site map for ST-35 is included as
Figure 4.
Contaminants in Soil
• Approximately 63,000 cubic yards of soil
were contaminated with JP-4 fuel. Soil
contamination extended from near the
ground surface to a depth of about
260 feet below ground surface (bgs).
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was
detected in soil at levels up to 320,000 parts
per million (ppm), and benzene was
detected at levels up to 110 ppm.
Contaminants in Groundwater
• The groundwater at the site was
contaminated with JP-4 from the fuel spill.
• Groundwater sampling and analysis at two
monitoring wells identified dissolved
hydrocarbons (including benzene with a
concentration of 510 parts per billion [ppb])
and 1 to 3 inches of floating JP-4.
Lithology
• Groundwater at the site is encountered
approximately 320 feet bgs.
• The lithology at Site ST-35 is comprised
mainly of sandy clay with interbedded
gravels and sands in the upper 260 feet.
• A caliche (cemented silts and clays) layer
located at approximately 240 feet bgs
impeded much of the vertical migration of
the fuel toward groundwater.
SVE System Details
• A full-scale SVE System with two 460 cubic
inch internal combustion engines (ICEs).
• The SVE/ICE system consisted of 6 vapor
extraction wells, a blower system, moisture
separator, thermal oxidizer, and air
treatment system.
• The SVE system operated at an average
flow rate of 123 standard cubic feet per
minute (scfm).
• The SVE system treated approximately
1,200lbs/day.
• Soil gas is extracted from the vadose zone
by the vacuum created by the ICEs and
subsequently burned as fuel in the ICEs. As
contaminant concentrations were reduced,
supplemental fuel is added to operate the
ICEs.
Operation Period
• The SVE/ICE system was operated from
September 1995 through July 1997.
Total Capital Costs
• $162,000 (estimated).
Total O&M Costs
• The total O&M cost for the SVE/ICE system
from September 1995 through July 1997,
after 22 months of operation, was
approximately $45,000 (Radian, 1997).
• O&M costs for the SVE/ICE system from
September 1995 through December 1996
were $32,700.
24
-------
S CONCRETE SLAB
SB35-16 OB-2
e
SB35-15
AREA OF CONTAMINATION IN SOIL
AREA OF CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
SOIL BORING LOCATION
» SVE EXTRACTION VENT
SVE OBSERVATION WELL
SOURCE: JMM. CONSULTING EN6INSEERS
INC.. NOVEMBER 1991 and MONTGOMERY WATSON. DECEMBER 1993
0 . 60
•
SCALE IN FEET
MISC20 DMST3S SAC VRL
Figure 4. Extent of Known Groundwater and Soil Contamination at ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
25
-------
Cost and Performance of SVE at Site ST-35
SVE Operational Objectives
The objective of SVE is typically to remove
contamination in the soil as cost-effectively as
possible to prevent contamination of surrounding
soil and groundwater.
Cost for Operation
Figure 5 illustrates the O&M costs for the SVE at
Site ST-35. The monthly O&M costs range from
$1,818 to $2,602. Total O&M costs after
16 months of operation were $32,700.
Contaminant Removal
Figure 6 illustrates the contaminant removal
rates of total volatile hydrocarbons (TVH) for the
SVE system at Site ST-35. Monthly contaminant
removal rates ranged from 14,700 to 67,800 Ibs.
Total contaminant removal after 16 months of
operation was 585,700 Ibs. of TVH. In October
1996, the curve representing the cumulative
removal rate had begun to flatten. The ICE
engine was reconfigured with a smaller engine
to reduce the need for supplemental fuel.
Following the reconfiguration, the system
performance improved and was meeting its
operational objectives.
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the SVE system at Site ST-35.
Figure 7 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
over the cumulative contaminant removal. As of
October 1996, this curve had begun to steepen
as the cost per unit of contaminant removal
rose. The ICE engine was reconfigured with a
smaller engine to reduce the need for
supplemental fuel. Following the reconfiguration,
the system performance improved and was
meeting its operational objectives.
Figure 8 illustrates the monthly as well as the
cumulative cost per unit of contaminant removal
over the operation time of the technology. The
first curve illustrates the cost per unit of
contaminant removal in each month. The
cumulative curve illustrates that the average
cost per unit of contaminant removal for after
16 months of operation time (December 1996)
was $0.06/pound of JP-4.
26
-------
$35,000
$30,000.
$25,000 .
$20,000
§
$15,000 .
$10,000 .
$5,000.
$0
Figure S
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
Cumulative costs
Total Monthly costs
$2,023,00
f
"?
o> o>
Month
Capital cost of SVE/ICE system = $162,000
Davis_m1.xls; Cumm Cost_Pound
700,000 ,
Figure 6
Monthly and Cumulative TVH* Recovered vs Time
Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
Cumulative pounds of TVHa Recovered
Pounds TVH Recovered per Month
43,558
14,659
CO CO
en o>
Month
* TVH = total volatile hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons were removed via an SVE system with modified ICEs
Davis_m1.xls; Cumm Removal
27
-------
$35.000,
$30,000.
$25,000.
$20,000
$15,000 .
$10,000 .
$5,000.
$0
Figure 7
Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Cumulative TVH* Recovered
Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
100,000
• TVH - total volatile hydrocarbons
Capital Cost=$162,000
200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Cumulative TVH Product Recovered (Pounds)
600,000 700,000
Davis_m1.xls; OM vs Mass
$0.18 ,
$0.16 .
$0.14.
$0.12.
$0.10.
$0.08-
$0.06-
Figure 8
Cumulative and Monthly O&M Cost per Pound of TVH'vs. Time
Site ST-35, Davis-Monthan AFB
-Monthly Cost per Pound TVH Recovered
-Cumulative cost per Pound TVH Recovered
Month
01 o>
1 TVH = total volatile hydrocarbons
Davis_m1.xls; Monthly Cost
28
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Cost and Performance Data Table
29
-------
FULL SCALE OPERATION
SITE ST-35 DAVIS-MONTHAN AFB
TUSCON, A2
Month
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Days of
Operation
30
31
22
27
30
23
31
30
31
30
23
28
30
31
27.5
31
Average
Influent TVH
Concentration
43,000
39,000
50,000
42,000
22,000
19,000
38,000
25,000
16,000
19,000
19,000
22,500
15,000
21,000
13,000
29,000
Average
Flow Rate
(scfm)
141
137
144
155
150
130
145
110
106
100
90
77
108
111
129
130
Pounds of TVH
Recovered per
Month
67,791
61,732
59,037
65,511
36,898
21,173
63,662
30,748
19,595
21,244
14,659
18,080
18,048
26,712
17,228
43,558
Cumulative
pounds of
TVH
Recovered
67,791
129,523
188,560
254,071
290,969
312,142
375,804
406,552
426,147
447,391
462,050
480,130
498,178
524,890
542,118
585,676
Monthly
Cost per
Pound TVH
Recovered
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.05
$0.10
$0.03
$0.06
$0.11
$0.09
$0.17
$0.14
$0.11
$0.08
$0.12
$0.05
Cumulative
cost per
Pound of
TVH
Recovered
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.05
$0.05
$0.05
$0.05
$0.06
$0.06
Monthly
Costs
$1,818
$1,831
$1,890
$1,839
$1,962
$2,070
$2,007
$1,980
$2,205
$1,827
$2,421
$2,602
$2,062
$2,068
$2,136
$2,023
Cumulative
Costs
$1,818
$3,649
$5,539
$7,378
$9,340
$11,410
$13,417
$15,397
$17,602
$19,429
$21,850
$24,452
$26,514
$28,582
$30,718
$32,741
30
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5
Chesterfield County, Virginia
31
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Site Name:
Defense Supply Center Richmond,
OU5
Location:
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Contaminants:
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Maximum concentrations measured
for soil during the RI were PCE -
1.5 mg/kg and TCE - 0.036 mg/kg
Period of Operation:
December 1-11, 1992
Cleanup Type:
Pilot-scale
USAGE Point of Contact:
Suzanne Murdock
Engineering and Support Center
Directorate of Engineering
Civil-Structures Division
PO Box 1600
Huntsville, AL 35816-1822
(205) 895-1635
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction:
- One extraction well (12 ft deep)
- Vacuum - 35 inches of water
- Air flow rate - 40 standard cubic
feet per minute (scfin).
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD dated March 25, 1992
- BSD dated March 8, 1996
DSCR Remedial Project
Manager:
Bill Saddington
Defense Supply Center Richmond
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5000
(804)279-3781
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Todd Richardson
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (MC 3HS50)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
(215) 814-5264
Waste Source: Disposal of wastes
in open pits
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil- 1,000 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Pilot study of SVE
for VOC contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil action levels of PCE - 0.58 mg/kg and TCE - 0.20 mg/kg
Results:
- Results of soil samples collected following completion of the pilot study showed that the soil action levels had
been achieved during the 10-day pilot test.
- Maximum concentrations reported for PCE -0.18 mg/kg and for TCE - 0.11 mg/kg
Cost:
- Total actual cost of the pilot study was $76,099, consisting of $18,225 for capital equipment and $57,874 for
operation and maintenance.
- Unit cost of the pilot study treatment activities was $76/yd3 (1,000 yd3 treated).
32
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5
Chesterfield County, Virginia (continued)
Description:
The Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) is a 565-acre installation located in Chesterfield County,
Virginia, on property owned by the Department of the Army. The mission of DSCR, built in the early 1940s, is
to manage and furnish general military supplies to the Armed Forces and several civilian federal agencies. In
August 1987, the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). A remedial investigation (RI), conducted
in November 1988, identified volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of a
pit area. While solvents or other organics were not used in these metal cleaning operations, the pits were open
and may have been used for undocumented disposal of organics from other operations at DSCR. In September
1990, DSCR entered into a federal facilities agreement (FFA) with EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia to
address contamination at operable units (OU) at the site. OU 5, the Acid Neutralization Pits source area, is the
focus of this report. The record of decision (ROD), signed on March 25, 1992, specified soil vapor extraction
(SVE) as the remedy for OU 5 and identified cleanup goals for PCE of 0.58 mg/kg and TCE of 0.20 mg/kg.
A pilot study of SVE was conducted from December 1 to December 11, 1992, to identify additional design
parameters for a full-scale system. The study consisted of two tests, a hydraulic influence test conducted over a
24-hour period, followed by a 10-day hydrocarbon removal test. For the hydrocarbon removal test, one
extraction well was used along with a carbon adsorption unit for the treatment of the off-gas. The results of soil
samples collected following completion of the pilot study showed that the soil action levels had been achieved
during the study. The maximum concentration reported for PCE was 0.18 mg/kg and 0.11 mg/kg for TCE. An
BSD was signed in March 1996 indicating that a full-scale system was not required. Covers were installed on the
pits, as required in the ROD. According to the BSD, several factors contributed to the success of the pilot test,
including: the actual area of contamination was smaller than originally estimated; natural attenuation may have
contributed to decreased contaminant levels; and PCE concentrations in the untreated soil were only slightly
higher than the cleanup goals.
33
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense Supply Center Richmond, OU 5
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Summary Information fl. 2.5]
The Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) is a 565-acre
installation located in Chesterfield County, Virginia, on property
owned by the Department of the Army. The installation, built in
1941 and 1942, originally included two separate facilities: the
Richmond General Depot and Richmond Holding and
Reconsignment Point. In the early 1990's, the installation
became known as DSCR. The mission of DSCR was to
organize, direct, and manage supplies, and to operate a storage
facility of the Defense Supply Agency. Today, DSCR's main
function is to manage and furnish general military supplies to the
Armed Forces and several civilian federal agencies.
In August 1987, the site was placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL). A remedial investigation (RI), conducted in
November 1988, identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of a pit area. While
solvents or other organics were not used in these metal cleaning
operations, the pits were open and may have been used for
undocumented disposal of organics from other operations at
DSCR.
In September 1990, DSCR entered into a federal facilities
agreement (FFA) with EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under that agreement, DSCR was divided into eight operable
units (OU). OU 5, the Acid Neutralization Pits source area, is
the focus of this report.
OU 5 is the site of two former concrete settling pits that received
wastewater from the metal cleaning operations conducted in
Warehouse 65. The metal cleaning operations, which included a
boiling bath of sodium hydroxide followed by a hot water dip
rinse, were conducted from 1958 until the early 1980s. The pits
were closed in 1985 and filled with soil. During closure, cracks
and holes were observed in the concrete, indicating the potential
for leaks to the subsurface.
The primary contaminants of concern were tetrachloroethene
(PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) in the groundwater, and VOCs
in the soil. The maximum concentrations measured for soil
during the RI were PCE - 1.5 rag/kg and TCE - 0.036 mg/kg.
Because the contaminated soil in the vicinity of the pit area was
determined to be the source of groundwater contamination, the
record of decision (ROD), signed on March 25, 1992, specified
soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the remedy for OU 5. The ROD
specified operation of the SVE system until concentrations for the
contaminants of concern in the soil were reduced to below
specified action levels. The ROD also indicated an estimated
time of four years for the system to reduce concentrations to the
action levels.
The estimated quantity of soil treated during this application was
1,000 cubic yards (yd3). The SVE system reduced the
concentrations for the contaminants of concern sooner than
anticipated, and EPA issued an Explanation of Significant
Differences (BSD) in March 1996 to describe how the remedial
action completed at this site differed from that identified in the
ROD.
CERCLIS ID Number: VA 3971520751
Lead: Defense Logistics Agency and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Timeline fl. 2.5]
March 25, 1992
December 1-11, 1992
March 8, 1996
ROD signed |
Pilot study of SVE conducted |
ESD signed \
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment [6.
8] ;
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics for this technology
and the values measured for each during site characterization.
According to the draft RI, soils underlying this area consist of
72% Tetotum, 18% Bourne, and 10% other soils (Aquults, Atlee,
Dunbar, Faceville, Gitney, Norfolk and Vaucluse soils).
Additional data showed that soils at this site consist of
approximately 50% clay.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
34
-------
Defense Supply Center Richmond, Operable Unit 5
Matrix Characteristics
Performance Information H. 2.51
Parameter
Soil Classification:
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution:
Moisture Content:
Ah- Permeability:
Porosity:
.* JT Value < <
Clean to silty sand and
silty clay
Approximately 50% clay
Soil characterized as
ranging from slightly damp
to moist
3.49xlO-8cm2to7.5xlO-7
cm2 (calculated range using
three methods)
30% (assumed by EPA
based on general knowledge
of site area)
Total Organic Carbon: Not available
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids: Not identified
Treatment Technology Description [1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 71
A pilot study of SVE was conducted from December 1 to
December 11, 1992, to identify additional design parameters for
a full-scale system. The study consisted of two tests, a hydraulic
influence test conducted over a 24-hour period, followed by a
10-day hydrocarbon removal test. For the hydrocarbon removal
test, one extraction well was used along with a carbon
adsorption unit for the treatment of the off-gas. The well was
installed at a depth of 12 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs),
and was screened from 6.5 ft bgs to 11.5 ft bgs. It was operated
at a vacuum of 35 inches of water and at an air flow rate of 40
standard cubic feet per minute (scfin). The maximum removal
rate for total volatile hydrocarbons was 0.00021 Ib/hr.
Listed below are the key operating parameters for this
technology and the values measured for each.
Operating Parameters
; ,-Pa'raTm'eter 'f*~ \»
Air Flow Rate: 40 scfm
Operating Vacuum: 35 inches of water
The ROD identified the following risk-based soil action levels for
OU 5 developed based on the protection of groundwater at the
site:
PCE - 0.58 mg/kg
TCE - 0.20 mg/kg
Following completion of the pilot study, 19 soil samples from the
area beneath six pits were collected and analyzed for PCE and
TCE. The results showed that the soil action levels had been
achieved during the pilot study. Samples from three of the six
pits were below detection levels for PCE and TCE. The
maximum concentrations reported for PCE (0.18 mg/kg) and for
TCE (0.11 mg/kg) were below the soil action levels. In addition,
the areal extent of the contaminated soil was determined to be
limited to a small area under one pit. An BSD was signed in
March 1996 indicating that a full-scale system was not required.
Covers were installed on the pits, as required in the ROD.
During the first day of the hydrocarbon removal test, high levels
of toluene were detected. It was determined that the source of the
toluene was a sealant used to make air-tight connections with the
wellhead. All components of the flow system that had come into
contact with the sealant were replaced, and rubber couplings were
used to create an air-tight seal. The toluene levels dropped below
detection limits by the fourth day of testing.
Performance Data Quality
No information was provided on the quality assurance/quality
control activities performed for this application.
Cost Information f2.3.71
Cost data obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) indicated that the total actual cost of the pilot study
was $76,099, consisting of $18,225 for capital equipment and
$57,874 for operation and maintenance. The unit cost of the pilot
study treatment activities was $76/yd3 (1,000 yd3 treated).
Information was not provided on the mass of contaminant
removed, and therefore a unit cost per pound of contaminant
removed was not calculated for this application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
35
-------
Actual Project Costs
t "-"" ""Cost Element
Capital
Site Work and Preparation
- Electrician
- Driller
Equipment and Appurtenances
- Vacuum extraction pilot unit rental
(Sl,250/wkx3wks)
- Vapor extraction well
($575/well x 2 wells)
- Vapor probes
($60/probe x 8 probes)
- Flexible hose, SS hose, clamps,
vacuum pressure gauges
- Data logger, transducer
(S610/wkx2wks)
- Additional transducers
($125/wkx8wks)
- Camera ($25/wk x 1 wk)
Capital Subtotal
Operation and Maintenance
Direct Labor
Travel
- Airfare
- Subsistence
- Auto Rental
Direct Materials
- Carbon canisters and disposal
(S2,300/can x 2 cans)
- Field sampling materials
- Field notebook
Equipment Overhead
- Telephone
^ fV^.* ^- ^ f^J(
Cost ($^1992)
1,300
8,500
3,750
1,150
480
800
1,220
1,000
25
18,225
20,904
550
2,075
1,500
4,600
300
14
100
•^— — — — Ileiense supply Center Richmond, Operable Unit 5
/^'iosns^i^)
-PC Rental 231
- Facsimile 106
- Overnight express 684
- Photocopier 25
Health and Safety
- Draeger bellow/tube 270
($90/wkx3wks)
- Microtip 900
($300/wk x 3 wks)
- Eye Wash 70
($35/wkx2wks)
Analytical (related to technology
performance, not compliance
monitoring)
- On-site GC services 1 8,625
- Soil VOC (method 8240) 5,600
($280/analysis x 20 analyses)
O&M Subtotal 57,874
Disposal of Residuals Included in total
Analytical (related to compliance
monitoring, not technology
performance)
SoilTCLP 1,300
($l,300/analysisx 1 analysis)
Total Project Cost 76,099
Observations and Lessons Learned 12. 51
Since implementation of a full-scale system was not required, the
cost for remediation of OU 5 was lower than the $1 16,000 ROD
estimate.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
36
-------
Defense Supply Center Richmond, Operable Unit 5
The cleanup goals were achieved during a 10-day pilot test
involving one extraction well! According to the BSD, several
factors contributed to the success of the pilot test, including:
• The actual area of contamination was smaller than
originally estimated
• Natural attenuation may have contributed to decreased
contaminant levels
• PCE concentrations in ;the untreated soil were only
slightly higher than the action levels.
According to the EPA RPM, rubber couplings were determined
to be better sealants than solvent-based materials because the
solvent-based materials were found to cause toluene
contamination hi the off-gas stream.
Contact information ._
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Todd Richardson *
U.S. EPA Region 3 '.
1650 Arch Street (MC 3HS50)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-5264
DSCR Remedial Project Manager:
Bill Saddington
Defense Supply Center Richmond
DSCR-WEP
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5000
Telephone: (804)279-3781
E-mail: bsaddington@dscr.dla.mil
USAGE Point of Contact:
Suzanne Murdock ;
Engineering and Support Center
Directorate of Engineering
Civil-Structures Division
PO Box 1600
Huntsville, AL 35816-1822
Telephone: (205) 895-1635
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in preparation of this report.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10.
1992. Record of Decision for OU 5 - Acid Neutralization Pits
Source Area, Defense General Supply Center. March.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Huntsville
Division. 1995. Explanation of Significant Differences for
Acid Neutralization Pit Soils (Operable Unit 5), Defense
General Supply Center, Chesterfield County, Virginia.
September.
3. USACE-Huntsville Division. 1992. Defense General Supply
Center, Operable Unit 5, Remedial Design, Task 3, Pilot
Plant Construction and Operation with Onsite GC.
December 21.
4. EPA. 1996. Defense General Supply Center ESDs for OU-5
& OU-9. Letter regarding concurrence with ESDs from Jack
Potosnak, Environmental Engineer, Federal Facilities Branch.
To Thomas C. Voltaggio, Director Hazardous Waste
Management Division. February 20.
5. EPA. 1997. Innovative Treatment Technologies Database,
Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition). August.
6. USACE-Huntsville Division. 1993. Defense General Supply
Center, Operable Unit 5, Task 3: Vapor Extraction Pilot
Study Results. Prepared by Engineering - Science, Inc.
March.
7. Jack Potosnak, Remedial Project Manager, EPA. 1998.
Comments on Review Draft of the Superfund Cost Report for
Soil Vapor Extraction at Defense General Supply Center,
OU5. April.
8. Bill Saddington, DSCR. 1998. Comments on Review Draft
of the Superfund Cost Report for Soil Vapor Extraction at
Defense General Supply Center, OU5. August 14.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology .Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Terra
Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office '
37
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
38
-------
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Texas Tower Site,
Ft. Greely, Alaska
39
-------
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Texas Tower Site,
Ft. Greely, Alaska
Site Name:
Texas Tower Site
Location:
Ft Greely, Alaska
Contaminants:
Petroleum hydrocarbons - diesel
range organics (DRO). Average
concentrations of DRO in soil were
500 mg/kg, and diesel range
petroleum hydrocarbons in
groundwater ranged from 0.085 to
18.6mg/L.
Period of Operation:
Status: Complete
Report covers: February 1994 to
February 1996
Cleanup Type:
Corrective Action
Vendor:
James J. Landry
Senior Project Geologist
AGRA Earth and
Environmental, Inc.
711 H Street, Suite 450
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3442
(907) 276-6480
Additional Contacts:
Cristal Fosbrook, Chief,
Environmental Restoration/
Compliance Branch
U.S. Army - Alaska, Directorate of
Public Works
730 Quartermaster Road
Ft. Richardson, Alaska 99505
(907) 384-3044
Technology:
Air Sparging, In Situ
Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor
Extraction
- System consisted of two air
sparging wells drilled to 55 ft
bgs, three SVE wells drilled to
52 ft bgs, and associated
equipment.
- No air pollution control devices
were included in this system.
- Air sparging provided 23-60 cfm
of air to the saturated zone; SVE
removed 400 cfrn (average) from
the vadose zone, at 50 inches
water across the blower.
- After 18 months of operation,
nutrient solution was injected
into the SVE wells.
Cleanup Authority:
State of Alaska Underground
Storage Tank Regulations
[18AAC78]
USACE Point of Contact:
Bernard T. Gagnon
Environmental Engineering and
Innovative Technology Advocate
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898
Telephone: (907)753-5718
Waste Source:
Leak from fuel line
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Combination of three technologies
used to treat DRO-contaminated
soil and groundwater in situ.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil (in situ) and Groundwater
- Approximately 6,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil (a portion of the
soil was in the saturated zone; this portion was not quantified).
- Soils consisted mainly of sand, gravel, cobble, and silt.
- Groundwater was encountered between 23 and 50 ft bgs, with a
saturated zone approximately 27 ft thick and a hydraulic gradient of
approximately 0.008 ft per ft.
- Subsurface materials encountered in all soil borings were generally
uniform throughout the site, from ground surface to 65 ft bgs.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The following remedial goals were specified for soil and groundwater at the Texas Tower site: soil (total
BTEX - 10 mg/kg, benzene - 0.1 mg/kg, and DRO -100 mg/kg); groundwater (benzene - 0.005 mg/L, toluene •
1 mg/L, ethylbenzene - 0.7 mg/L, xylenes - 10 mg/L, and diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons - 0.1 mg/L) as
set forth in the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation UST regulations.
40
-------
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, and Soil Vapor Extraction at
the Texas Tower Site,
Ft. Greely, Alaska (continued)
Results:
- Over two years of system operation, approximately 1,300 Ibs of contaminants were extracted through the SVE
wells. Those contaminants consisted of 829 Ibs of DRO, 418 Ibs of GRO, and 55 Ibs of total BTEX
compounds. The estimate above does not include contaminants removed through biodegradation, which was
not measured.
- Concentrations of contaminants in treated soil and groundwater met the remedial goals in all samples with the
exception of three soil sample locations and three groundwater sample locations. Because the soil samples
were from locations that had not been sampled prior to the design of the treatment system, the US ACE
concluded that the results suggested an additional "hot spot" outside of the original treatment area. Based on
the results of a "mini-risk assessment" performed by the USAGE, no additional remedial activities were
identified. The State of Alaska accepted the closure report for this application.
- The operations contractor cited the following reasons for why no additional remedial activities were necessary:
the leaking fuel lines that had been the source of the release had been removed; highly contaminated soil had
been excavated and treated off site; no compounds for which maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been
established had been detected at concentrations above MCLs during more than two years of monitoring; and
the potential for exposure from residual hydrocarbons was negligible.
Cost:
- The total proposed cost for the air sparging, in situ bioremediation, and SVE system at the Texas Tower site
was $295,760, including $145,420 for construction, $117,230 for operation, and $33,110 for work plan
preparation.
- A unit cost of treatment of $47 per cubic yard was calculated from the total cost of $295,760 to remediate
6,300 cubic yards of soil (in situ); a portion of this soil was in the saturated zone.
- Because the site is isolated, the USAGE reported that the cost of transportation of the equipment to the site and
setup at the site was a significant portion of the total cost of the project.
- Costs of operation were kept low by monitoring the operation of the remediation system remotely. The system
was not staffed, except for monthly sampling events. This savings in operating cost was not quantified for this
application.
Description:
The Texas Tower site consists of four buildings surrounded by a chain-link fence at the U.S. Army's Ft. Greely
military facility, located approximately five miles south of Delta Junction, Alaska, near Fairbanks. During
demolition of one of the buildings in 1990, a release of petroleum hydrocarbons was discovered, reportedly
originating from an underground heating oil supply line. Site investigations determined that the release had
impacted both subsurface soil and groundwater. In 1990, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil
were excavated and transported off site for thermal treatment, and in 1993 the excavation was backfilled with
clean soil.
In August 1993, the USAGE contractor conducted a pilot test of an SVE and air sparging system, and a
biotreatability test. On the basis of the results from these tests, the contractor concluded that the site was
amenable to remediation by a combination of the three technologies. The full-scale system was installed between
November 1993 and January 1994 and was operated from February 1994 to February 1996. Closure samples
were collected in April 1996 and, based on the data from these samples and a "mini risk assessment", the State of
Alaska accepted the closure report for this application. ^^^
41
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Texas Tower Site
Fort Greely, Alaska
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, Soil Vapor
Extraction
Corrective Action (under State of Alaska Underground
Storage Tank Regulations [18AAC78])
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION (2.5)
Period of Operation: Full-scale operation - February 1994 to February 1996
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: Approximately 6,300 cubic yards (yd 3) of
contaminated soil (a portion of which contained groundwater) was treated in situ.
BACKGROUND M.4>
Site Background:
• The Texas Tower Site is located at the U.S. Army's Fort Greely military facility. Ft. Greely is
located approximately five miles south of Delta Junction, Alaska, near Fairbanks.
• The Texas Tower Site consists of four buildings surrounded by a six-foot high chain-link fence.
• During demolition of one of the buildings in 1990, a release of petroleum hydrocarbons was
discovered.
• The release was reported to have originated from an underground fuel line that had supplied
heating oil to the demolished building from an aboveground storage tank (AST).
Waste Management Practices that Contributed to Contamination: Leak from fuel line
Site Investigation: Phase I site investigation activities included an electromagnetic survey, active and
passive soil gas monitoring and analysis, and test pit excavations. Phase II site investigation activities
included the soil and groundwater sampling described below.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
42
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
Soil
• Nine soil borings were collected during the site investigation and analyzed for:
— Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
— Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
— Diesel range organics (DRO)
• Data indicated that contamination extended vertically from the ground surface to 50 feet
below ground surface (bgs) and horizontally over an area of approximately 5,655 square
feet (ft2).
• Levels of DRO contamination ranged from Not Detected (ND) to 740 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) and levels of TPH ranged from ND to 9,200 mg/kg. Average concentrations of DRO
were 500 mg/kg. It was estimated that approximately 2,500 pounds of DRO were present in
the contaminated soil.
No VOC contamination at levels above cleanup standards was detected in any of the nine
soil borings.
• In four of the nine soil borings, levels of DRO contamination exceeded the standard of 100
mg/kg established by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) under
the state's underground storage tank (UST) regulations (18 AAC 78.315).
Groundwater
In 1991 and 1992, three monitoring wells were sampled for TPH and diesel-range petroleum
hydrocarbons (DRPH).
• TPH was detected in two of the three monitoring wells; concentrations ranged from ND to
14.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
DRPH concentrations ranged from 0.085 to 18.6 mg/L.
Historical Activities Prior to Technology Application (1):
In 1990, contaminated soil at the site was excavated to a depth of approximately 15 ft
(approximately 2,000 yd3). The excavated soil was treated thermally off site.
In 1993, the excavated area was backfilled with clean fill.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
43
-------
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
USAGE Point of Contact:
Bernard T. Gagnon*
Environmental Engineering and Innovative Technology Advocate
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Telephone: (907)753-5718
E-mail: bernard.t.gagnon@poa02.usace.army.mil
Phase I and II Site Investigations:
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
U.S. Army - Alaska District
Cristal Fosbrook, Chief, Environmental Restoration/Compliance Branch
U.S. Army - Alaska, Directorate of Public Works
730 Quartermaster Road
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505
Telephone: (907) 384-3044
E-mail: fosbrooc@richardson-emh2.army.mil
Operation Contractor:
James J. Landry
Senior Project Geologist
AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc.
711 H Street, Suite 450
Anchorage, AK 99501-3442
Telephone: (907) 276-6480
*Primary point of contact for this application
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater (in situ)
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
SITE STRATIGRAPHY
Subsurface materials encountered in all soil borings were generally uniform throughout the
project site, from ground surface to 65 ft bgs.
Soils consisted mainly of sand, gravel, cobble, and silt.
Groundwater was encountered between 23 and 50 ft bgs, with a saturated zone approximately
27 ft thick.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
44
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
• The inferred groundwater gradient at the site was to the north-northwest, with a hydraulic
gradient of approximately 0.008 ft per ft.
• Four distinct zones were observed through the total depth of the borings; the units were
identified as A, B, C, and D and are described as follows:
Unit A: Sand, fine to very coarse, and gravel (surface to 30 feet bgs)
Unit B: Sand, fine to very coarse, with some gravel and silt (30 to 40 feet bgs)
Unit C: Silt, sand, gravel, and cobble (35 to 50 feet bgs)
Unit D: Sand, fine to coarse, with silt and some gravel, very dense (50 to 65 feet bgs)
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Semivolatile and volatile nonhalogenated hydrocarbons - diesel fuel
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES M.61
• Diesel fuel (No. 2 fuel oil) consists primarily of unbranched paraffins (straight chained alkanes)
with a flash point between 110 ° and 190°F (43-88°C)
• Approximately one-half of the diesel fuel appeared to be within the range of volatile
hydrocarbons
Little preexisting natural weathering of the contaminant was evident
• Toxicity: High
• Flammability: High
Solubility: 13-1,780ppmat20°C
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE Ml
''<'t>i4i«W»»*^»'**^B»^"-''^; : '!>•>"•" ' <&&&£&&• :'-&4«& -^8-WmKv-. , - •'>.««;£»• . 'i^>. '•-'.$<>£• " •ffvffifr.'.'. ie&&' *x&^
vi^aKiiiiiEriGFttK ••=!**'>• %*= '^^^f Vi±sr.-;. ss±^ •' %%t. .*$$?• fi$&^ *%?&,:.?$%. ^
Soil classification
Clay content and/or particle size distribution
Hydraulic conductivity/water permeability
Moisture content
Air permeability
PH
Porosity
Total organic carbon
Nonaqueous phase liquids
Contaminant sorption
Lower explosive limit
Presence of inclusions
Nitrogen concentration
Biological oxygen, demand
Humic content
j-i/alBS' • rSK.K -tZgSKf.^- '^s^-^-.-'SfS^'- ?3«fr- ;: t8S£f, ;S5iS"
' 'SfawtMS^'-'"**'***"" •• '"**&>^--:W&t'&£Z. ^ SL.?^.. S^\. - :*a^->- . -<^w^v- '*?%%„. :,
Primarily sand with some silt, gravel, and cobble
at various depths
Clay content: low
Particle size: fine to coarse
Moderate to high
2.8 to 4.0% from 10 to 25 feet bgs
1 9.8 to 23.0% at 30 feet bgs
7.3 to 9.9% at 49 to 54 feet bgs
Information not available
6.0 to 7.0
25 to 50%
Information not available
None identified
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Soil - 6 ppm
Groundwater - <1 ppm
Information not available
Low
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
45
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TYPES
Air Sparging, In Situ Bioremediation, Soil Vapor Extraction
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPES
None
TIMELINE M.21
Date
1990
1990
1991 to 1993
July 1993
August 1993
August to September
1993
November 1993 to
January 1994
February 1994 to
February 1996
April 1996
April 1997
,/.'
. A^ivtty«^v; /„ ;; .. ^
Petroleum contamination identified at Texas Tower Site
2,000 yd3 of contaminated soil excavated and thermally treated offsite
Phase I and II site investigation and feasibility study conducted
Excavated area backfilled
Delivery order awarded to Beck Environmental
Treatability studies conducted
Treatment system constructed and installed by Beck Environmental
Treatment system operated and monitored by AGRA Earth & Environmental,
Inc.
Soil and groundwater closure samples collected and analyzed
Treatment system operated and monitored by AGRA Earth & Environmental,
Inc.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
46
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM (1.5.7)
APPROXIMATE
EXTENT OF
SOIl/GROUNDWATER
IMPACTS
AREA OF HEAVY
CONTAMINATION
B-3
©
©
B-4
©
n I
)
I
\< —
(
I
\
M©
© WOK ccnvcnoH wni
© SnVtONO WELL
©SOL BOIBNC
EQUIPMENT CONNEX
Figure 1. Treatment System Layout (No scale) (2)
Construction
• As shown in Figure 1, the treatment system included two air sparging wells, three soil vapor
extraction (SVE) wells, and associated equipment for adding nutrients. In addition, a number of
wells were installed for monitoring of groundwater.
• The contractor mobilized equipment for the treatment system by barge from Sumner,
Washington.
• An equipment enclosure building, including remote monitoring equipment, also was installed at
the site.
Pilot Test
In August 1993, USAGE contracted with Beck Environmental to design and install an in situ
bioremediation system to reduce levels of residual diesel in the soil and groundwater; the
system consisted of SVE and air sparging.
Beck Environmental and AGRA Earth & Environmental conducted a pilot test on September 4,
1993 at the Texas Tower Site. The pilot test consisted of a test of the SVE and air sparging
system and a biotreatability study.
For the SVE and air sparging test, a Rotron DR-404 blower was used to pull air from a
monitoring well at a rate of 80 cubic foot per minute (cfm) while a compressor was used to inject
air into a sparge well.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
47
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
The effective radius of influence for the SVE well, defined as the distance at which the vacuum
influence was equal to 1 percent of the operating vacuum, was approximately 70 ft.
Measurements of the SVE air stream by organic vapor meter ranged from 285 ppm after 5
minutes to 265 ppm after 20 minutes.
A composite grab soil sample and a groundwater sample were taken from the Texas Tower Site
and shipped to the contractor's laboratory in Kirkland, Washington for a two-week biotreatability
test.
Groundwater and soil samples were analyzed to determine growth of heterotrophic bacteria and
corresponding concentrations of petroleum.
Application of heat to the groundwater did not appear to increase the effectiveness of the
treatment; results of the study of culture growth indicated similar trends at high concentrations of
nutrients in both low and high temperature environments.
Analysis of aerated groundwater samples, both with and without added nutrients demonstrated a
reduction in petroleum concentrations that was greater than the reduction obtained without
aeration.
On the basis of the results of the pilot test, the contractor concluded that the site was amenable
to remediation by a combination of air sparging, in situ bioremediation, and SVE.
Air Sparging System
Two air sparging wells were drilled to a depth of 55 feet bgs and constructed of 2-inch-diameter
galvanized steel pipe.
The wells were installed through the long axis of the contamination zone (12 to 32 ft bgs).
Each well had 5 feet of 0.020-inch slot "V" wire screen at the base of the saturated zone.
The first 45 feet and the last 5 feet of each well were solid pipe; the last 5 ft served as a
collection sump for siltation that might occur during a sparge cycle.
A Cyclo Blower Model 3LDL5 was used to inject air in the wells; flow control valves allowed
manual control of the air flow rate and pressure to each of the sparging wells.
SVE System
Three SVE wells were drilled to 52 feet bgs, constructed of 4-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe, and screened with 0.050-inch slot "V" wire screen from 12 to 32 feet bgs. The wells
were used as extraction and monitoring wells.
Soil vapor was removed from the wells by an EN-12 Rotron Blower capable of a maximum flow
rate of 600 cfm at 0 pounds per square inch (psi) vacuum and 200 cfm at 3.6 psi. Vacuum lines
from the SVE wells were equipped with a flow control valve, an air velocity monitoring port, and
a sampling port.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
48
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
Vapors extracted from the subsurface were directed through a 55-gallon condensate tank that
preceded the blower. No air pollution control devices were incorporated into the SVE system.
The exhaust from the SVE system was vented to the atmosphere through a 4-inch-diameter
exhaust stack extending to 6 feet above the top of the blower.
The exhaust stack was equipped with an air velocity monitoring port, an air sampling port, and a
combustible gas indicator (CGI). The CGI continuously monitored the lower explosive limit
(% LEL) of the air stream and would shut the system down if the LEL exceeded 20%.
According to the USAGE, no offgas treatment was incorporated into the design because the
emissions were below regulatory levels.
Operation
The air sparging system provided from 23 to 60 cfm of air to the saturated zone during operation
of the system.
The air sparging system was shut down temporarily in January 1995, June 1995, and October
and November 1995 for maintenance and repair; the system also was shut down from February
to April 1995 because the groundwater levels were below the screen intervals of the sparge
wells.
The SVE system removed an average of 400 cfm of vapor from the vadose zone.
Measurements by photoionization detector (PID) taken from the exhaust stack ranged from 165
ppm at startup to ND in February 1996, when the system was shut down.
On August 15, 1995, the contractor injected 4,000 gallons of nutrient solution (using a mixture of
50 Ibs of fertilizer to 1,000 gallons of water) into the SVE wells. The fertilizer contained 17 Ibs of
ammonium nitrate per 50 Ib bag of fertilizer (32% ammonium nitrate by weight).
The remediation equipment enclosure was separated into potentially hazardous and
nonhazardbus areas by a wall. The air sparging equipment was installed on the nonhazardous
side. The SVE system, made up of explosion-proof (Class 1, Division 2D) equipment, was
installed on the hazardous side. All electrical equipment was equipped with low voltage
protection. In addition, the LEL in the exhaust from the SVE system was monitored
continuously, and the monitoring equipment was set to shut the system down automatically if the
LEL exceeded 20 percent.
The entire treatment system was monitored remotely. The system monitored the LEL of the
SVE exhaust and the operational status of the equipment and ventilation systems in the
enclosure. The equipment could be shut down automatically (or remote manually) if operating
parameters were exceeded.
The enclosure for the remediation equipment was not staffed during normal operation. Site
workers wore level D personal protective equipment during the monthly monitoring events.
For demobilization, the equipment enclosure was removed from the site, and all SVE and air
sparging wells were removed and abandoned in accordance with the project specifications.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
49
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
System Monitoring Requirements (5)
Media Monitored
Air in sparging system
Groundwater
Groundwater
Frequency
Air Sparging System
At startup, four days after
startup, weekly for the first
month, and once a month until
the system was shut down
Monthly
Monthly
In Situ Bioremediation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Ambient air
Extracted vapors
August 15 and September 28,
1995
August 1994
SVE System
February and August 1994
At startup, four days after
startup, weekly for the first
month, and once a month until
the system was shut down
Parameters Monitored
Sparge line pressure and air flow
rate
Water level in monitoring wells
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX), DRO,
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH,
temperature, and conductivity
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and
oxygen (O2) levels
Bacteria
BTEX, gasoline-range organics
(GRO)
Concentrations of organic vapor in
air stream, air flow rates, vacuum
at condensate tank, percent LEL
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE f2 51
Air Sparging -, - - „ . , - , " -
Air flow rate
Pressure at monitoring point
23 to 60 cfm
2 to 5 psi
In Situ Bioremediation ' " _ *
PH
Temperature
Microbial activity
Oxygen uptake rate (average)
Carbon dioxide evolution (average)
Hydrocarbon degradation (average)
Nutrient and other amendments
6.0 to 7.0
30 to 60°F
106 colony forming units per milliliter
30 mg O2/L soil gas/day
20 mg COj/L soil gas/day
Information not available
Fertilizer (32% ammonium nitrate by weight)
SVE System
Air flow rate
Vacuum
400 cfm (total system)
50" WC (measured across blower)
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
50
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
Closure (2.3)
• A closure report for the application was submitted to the State of Alaska in April 1997.
• According to USAGE, the state of Alaska accepted the closure report for the application. For the
application, USAGE was required to apply the "best available technology" for a duration that would
perform to the maximum extent practicable (a point of diminished returns as evidenced by a lack of
contaminants in the off gas).
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (2)
The following remedial goals were specified for soil and groundwater at the Texas Tower site:
*'- v^P-Mallix* $ •#*- 1
Soil
Groundwater
*^T:"~ 'xf^-~ 'p^aj^g^^^'V^j -~i'*-'— • '-3*£L nt!ri&':^- «£&•' '•$$$&•• •i'-"^f^<
y(s' -3*r .^y^^Giontamflinajiw' 5r,«ai:;-*t- -•'
Total BTEX
Benzene
DRO
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Hydrocarbons
*' •'': 3»7 »3K- ftpjrnefliail'' Gsolfl * £:• osliF :~ -
10mg/kg
0.10mg/kg
100mg/kg
0.005 mg/L
1.0mg/L
0.70 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
0.10 mg/L
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA (2)
During closure, a total of 10 soil samples was collected from five soil borings at depths of 20 and
35 ft bgs; a split spoon sampler was used. The samples were analyzed by Superior Analytical
Laboratory for the following groups of contaminants:
— GRO by EPA Method 8015
— BTEX by EPA Method 8020
— DRO by EPA Method 8100-M
— VOCs by EPA Method 8260
— Semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCS) by EPA Method 8270
AGRA Earth & Environmental collected groundwater samples from vapor extraction, air
sparging, and groundwater monitoring wells. The samples were analyzed by Superior Analytical
Laboratory for the contaminant groups listed above.
• AGRA Earth & Environmental reported that most measured values were lower than the remedial
goals. Results of analysis showed that concentrations of contaminants exceeded specific
remedial goals in three soil sample locations and three groundwater sample locations. In
addition, two soil sample locations and one groundwater sample locations contained detectable
concentrations of specific contaminants or groups of contaminants for which there were no
corresponding remedial goals, referred to below as "other". The reported concentrations that
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
51
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
were greater than their respective remedial goals, and other closure sampling results, are
provided below:
Matrix
Soil
Groundwater
Contaminant
Total BTEX
GRO
DRO
DRO
DRO
VOCs
SVOCs
BTEX
GRO
VOC
SVOC
DRO
DRO
DRO
Remedial Goal
10 mg/kg
None
100 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
100 mg/kg
None
None
11.705
0.10mg/L(as
hydrocarbons)
None
None
0.10mg/L(as
hydrocarbons)
0.10mg/L(as
hydrocarbons)
0.10mg/L(as
hydrocarbons)
Closure Sampling
^ Results ^
Exceeding (
Remedial Goals "
18.9 mg/kg
-
2,000 mg/kg
3,000 mg/kg
2,700 mg/kg
. -
-
0.21 mg/L
-
-
5 mg/L
0.77 mg/L
0.1 3 mg/L
-, Other , /
Closure ^
Sampling -
s Results
-
990 mg/kg
-
-
-
ND
1.8 mg/kg1
0.0037 mg/L
0.0181 mg/L2
0.2 mg/L3
"^ r
<~ "«*
* ^ *
' '
Sample
Location
CB-1 (35')
CB-1 (35')
CB-4 (35')
CB-4 (20')
CB-5 (20')
CB-5 (20')
CB-1 (35')
VES-2
VES-2
VES-2
VES-2
VES-2
AS-2
MW-5
Notes:
ND Not detected
1 2-methyl-naphthalene detected at 1.8 mg/kg
2 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene detected at 0.0068 mg/L and p-isophopyltoluere detected at 0.0043 mg/L
3 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate detected at 0.20 mg/L
No additional information about the concentrations of specific contaminants or contaminant
groups in soil or groundwater at the site was provided in the references available.
• As discussed above, the State of Alaska accepted the closure report for this application.
USAGE performed a "mini-risk assessment" to show that the concentration of contaminants did
not pose a sufficient risk to warrant additional remedical activities.
• On the basis of the quantitative results and the air flow rates for the SVE system, AGRA Earth &
Environmental estimated that approximately 1,300 Ibs of contaminants had been removed from
the vadose zone by the SVE system. That total consisted of 829 Ibs of DRO, 418 Ibs of GRO,
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
52
-------
Ft. Greely Texas Tower Site
and 55 Ibs of total BTEX compounds. The estimate does not include contaminants removed
from the saturated or vadose zones through biodegradation.
The highest removal rates for DRO and GRO were 5.9 Ibs per day and 1.6 Ibs per day,
respectively.
Although results of monitoring suggested that biological activity is present at the site, no
estimate was made of the mass of hydrocarbons degraded through biological activity.
The areal extent of the contamination was estimated to be 5,655 ft2 before treatment and 730 ft2
after treatment; a reduction of approximately 87 percent.
• AGRA Earth & Environmental reported that the results of analyses of soil borings indicated that,
when treatment had been completed, contamination was limited to two isolated areas at the site.
The first area was a zone near CB-1 approximately 15 to 20 feet thick, containing elevated
concentrations of BTEX and GRO. The second area was a zone from CB-4 (approximately 15-
20 feet thick) to CB-5 (approximately 20-25 feet thick). In the second zone, concentrations of
DRO ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 mg/kg.
Material Balance: No information is currently available to correlate the mass of contaminants at the site
before treatment with the mass after treatment. For example, no information is available to match the
concentrations measured in the nine original soil borings and the five soil borings collected at closure. In
addition, no information is available to correlate data from groundwater monitoring wells with data from
extraction wells.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (2)
• The contractor performed monitoring activities in accordance with the ADEC UST regulations
(18 AAC 78) and the requirements of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which had
been approved by ADEC.
• USAGE North Pacific Division Laboratory (NPDL) prepared a chemical quality assurance report
(QAR) for the analytical data produced during the investigation.
During the cleanup process, quality control (QC) samples were submitted to Superior Analytical
Laboratory, and quality assurance (QA) samples were submitted to NPDL.
NPDL submitted split samples to Applied Research & Development in Mt. Vernon, Illinois for
analysis.
The NPDL QA/QC report verified that all results were accurate, except the results of VOC
analysis for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and p-isopropyltoluene in three water samples.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
53
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS (5)
• The procurement process was a firm, fixed-price contract competitively solicited by request for
proposals. Contractors' proposals were evaluated against technical evaluation criteria that
included the contractor's qualifications, experience, and training. The contractor was selected
based on consideration of a combination of technical qualifications and proposed costs.
The contract was separated into one base item, preparation of the work plan, and two optional
items, construction of the system and operation of the system. This approach was used to allow
the government to cease the contract after the work plan had been prepared if the contractor
submitted a poor work plan or if it was determined that the treatment process would not work.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (3)
• USAGE identified the following proposed costs for the application:
Preparation of work plan
Construction
Operation
$33,110
$145,420
$117,230
TOTAL $295.760
No information is available comparing actual costs with proposed costs.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Cleanup criteria for the Texas Tower Site were included in the original USAGE solicitation; the
criteria were based on the ADEC regulations that govern remediation of USTs (18 AAC 78).
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (5)
• The total proposed cost for the air sparging, in situ bioremediation, and SVE system at the
Texas Tower Site was $295,760, including $145,420 for construction, $117,230 for operation,
and $33,110 for work plan preparation.
• A unit cost of treatment of $47 per yd3 was calculated from the total cost of $295,760 to
remediate 6,300 yd3 of in situ soil and groundwater.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
54
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
Because the site is isolated, the USAGE reported that the cost of transportation of the equipment
to the site and setup at the site was a significant portion of the total cost of the project.
Costs of operation were kept low by monitoring the operation of the remediation system
remotely. The system therefore could be unstaffed, except for monthly sampling events. This
savings in operating costs was not quantified for this application.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Over the two years during which the system operated, approximately 1,300 Ibs of contaminants
were removed from the vadose zone. Those contaminants consisted of 829 Ibs of DRO, 418 Ibs
of GRO, and 55 Ibs of total BTEX compounds. The estimate above does not include
contaminants removed through biodegradation.
• Concentrations of contaminants in treated soil and groundwater met the remedial goals in all
samples with the exception of three soil sample locations and three groundwater sample
locations. Because the soil samples were from locations that had not been sampled prior to the
design of the treatment system, the USAGE concluded that the results suggested an additional
"hotspot" outside of the original treatment area. Based on the results of a "mini-risk assessment"
performed by USAGE, no additional remedial activities were warranted. The State of Alaska
accepted the closure report for this application.
The operation contractor cited the following reasons, why no additional remedial activities were
necessary: The leaking fuel lines that had been the source of the release had been removed;
highly contaminated soil had been excavated and treated off site; no compounds for which
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established had been detected at
concentrations above MCLs during more than two years of monitoring; and the potential for
exposure from residual hydrocarbons was negligible.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
USAGE Alaska District operated the system remotely by a state-of-the-art monitoring and
telemetry system. The USAGE estimates that in situ treatment of soils was considerably less
expensive than the conventional method of excavation and thermal treatment off site.
Beck Environmental Contracting and RZA Agra Alaska Inc. 1993. Bioremediation Work Plan,
Texas Tower Site, Fort Greely, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska
District, Anchorage Alaska. DACA#85-93-C-0041. October.
AGRA Earth & Environmental Inc. 1997. Site Closure Report, Texas Tower Site, Fort Greely,
Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DACA #85-93-C-0041 (without
appendices). April.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
55
-------
Ft Greely Texas Tower Site
3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1988. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Cost and Performance
Reports. Between Richard Weisman, and Bernard Gagnon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) Alaska Division. December 5.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Innovative Technology Works: Fort Greely. 1997.
http://www.mrd.usace.army.mil/environmental/success/greely1.html. December 29.
5. Gagnon, B. USAGE - Alaska District. 1998. Comments and Responses on Pre-draft Report.
July 16.
6. CRC Press. 1988. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1st Student Addition.
7. Gagnon, B. USAGE - Alaska District. 1998. Pre-draft Cost and Performance Report, Texas
Tower, comments. September 9.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian
International LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
56
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction
at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington
57
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction
at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington
Site Name:
Fort Lewis Landfill 4
Location:
Tacoma, Washington
Contaminants:
Volatiles (halogenated), and metals
(manganese). Maximum
concentrations of halogenated
constituents in soil gas were: 4.1
mg/m3 dichloroethene, 1.6 mg/m3
trichloroethene, and 0.2 mg/m3
vinyl chloride. Maximum
concentrations of halogenated
constituents in groundwater were 7
ug/L dichloroethene, 79 ug/L
trichloroethene, and 7.8 ug/L vinyl
chloride. Manganese was detected
in groundwater at concentrations
up to 13 mg/L.
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 12/5/94 through
10/31/97
Cleanup Type:
Remedial Action
Vendor:
Fred Luck, P.E.
Garry Struthers Associates, Inc.
3150 Richards Road, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005-4446
(206) 519-0300
USACE Contacts:
Kira Lynch and Bill Goss
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District
CENWS-TB-ET (Lynch)
CENWS-PM-HW (Goss)
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124
(206) 764-6918 (Lynch)
(206) 764-6682 (Goss)
Technology:
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air
sparging (AS):
- A pilot test of three SVE wells
and one AS well was operated
from December 5 through 15,
1994.
- The full system consisted of six
SVE, five AS wells, ten vadose
zone piezometers, three
dissolved oxygen sensor wells,
and four passive air injection
wells.
- The SVE wells were piped
through a set of parallel
treatment systems each
consisting of a vapor/water
separator, a blower, and two
GAC canisters connected in
series.
- Operations included various
combinations of extraction and
sparge flow rates, and use of
injection wells.
Cleanup Authority:
The cleanup at Landfill 4 is being
performed in accordance with a
Federal Facilities Agreement
between the Department of the
Army, EPA, and the Washington
Department of Ecology, and a
ROD signed October 15, 1993.
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Bob Kievit
EPA Remedial Project Manager,
Region 10
300 Desmend Drive Suite 102
Lacey, Washington 98503
(360) 753-9014
58
-------
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction
at Landfill 4, Fort Lewis, Washington (continued)
Waste Source:
Leaks and spills of solvent waste to
soil surfaces on and near Landfill
4; unlined liquid waste disposal
pits
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of a combination of
innovative technologies to treat
halogenated organic contamination
in situ in both soil and
groundwater. !
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
In situ soil (both saturated and unsaturated) - volume not determined
- Sandy gravel to sandy silty gravel
- Moisture content (unsaturated soil) - 9-12%
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified four objectives for the remedy: to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater, to
restore the contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use, to minimize movement of contaminants from soil
to groundwater, and to prevent exposure to the contents of the landfill.
- No soil cleanup levels were identified in the available reference material.
- The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the upper aquifer beneath the site were: TCE - 5 ug/L and
vinyl chloride -1 |ig/L.
- Monitoring for manganese in groundwater also was required for areas of the site.
Results: ;
- Pilot test and startup phases of the remediation were used to determine the optimum system parameters for
the treatment system.
- It was estimated that approximately 60 pounds of TCE were removed from as of October 30, 1997.
- Although the impact of the AS system on the degradation of TCE was not conclusively determined, it was
recommended that the AS system be operated until an impact/benefit analysis for the system is completed.
- It was concluded that an additional hot spot of TCE contamination may be located upgradient and out of the
area of influence of the remediation system.
Cost:
- The total cost of ithe pilot study for this application was $241,000.
- The negotiated cost for the full-scale remediation system was $1,710,303.
Description:
Ft. Lewis began operation in 1917. The Landfill 4 area consists of approximately 52 acres, which is divided
into three cells located adjacent to a former gravel pit. These cells were used from the early 1950s to the late
1960s, reportedly, for the disposal of refuse, including domestic and light industrial solid waste and
construction debris. After disposal activities was ceased, the landfill was covered with native material and has
since been overgrown with vegetation.
Site investigations beginning in 1988 identified chlorinated hydrocarbon and metal contamination in the
groundwater beneath the landfill. An RI/FS, conducted in 1993, led to the ROD for the site signed on October
15, 1993, which prescribed a remedy consisting of SVE and AS and monitoring of groundwater for manganese.
An SVE/AS pilot test was conducted at the site in December 1994 and the full-scale SVE/AS system was put on
line in October 1996. The system had removed approximately 60 pounds of TCE (in soil gas) from the
subsurface as of October 31, 1997, and currently continues to operate.
59
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Tacoma, Washington (Figure 1)
Air Sparging and Soil Vapor Extraction
Remedial
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation: Pilot Study - December 5-15,1994; Full-scale Operation October 1,1996 -
ongoing (report covers period from October 1,1996 through October 31,1997)
Quantity of Material Treated During Application (13): Since this application is ongoing, the quantity
of material treated has not been estimated. Approximately 60 pounds of trichloroethene (TCE) have
been removed from the subsurface as of October 31,1997 (based on concentrations in extracted soil
gas).
BACKGROUND
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Leaks and spills of solvent waste
to soil surfaces on and near Landfill 4; unlined liquid waste disposal pits
Site Background (1,6, 8):
• Ft. Lewis occupies about 86,000 acres at the southern end of Puget Sound, and is located
approximately 12 miles from Tacoma Washington. Ft. Lewis began operating in 1917 and
currently serves as a military reservation. Ft. Lewis is divided by I-5 into North Ft. Lewis and the
Main Post.
• Landfill 4 (LF4) is located on North Ft. Lewis near Sequalitchew Lake and Sequalitchew Springs,
which is the primary drinking water supply for the fort. The 52 acre landfill is divided into three
cells - South, Northeast, and Northwest and is located adjacent to a gravel pit
(Figure 2).
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
60
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
SEQUALITCHEW
LAKE
Suspected Liquid Waste
Disposal Pits
Not to Scale
Figure 2: Landfill 4 - Location of Three Cells [6]
From the early 1950's to the late 1960's, LF4 was reportedly used for the disposal of refuse,
including domestic and light industrial solid waste and construction debris, and for the disposal
of liquid waste in unlined cells. In addition, LF4 was reportedly used as a gravel quarry in the
1940's and for equipment storage and maintenance. After disposal activities ceased, the landfill
was covered with native materials such as sand, gravel and soil; the landfill is currently covered
with trees and grass.
According to the 1993 Remedial Investigation (Rl), there were no reports of disposal of
hazardous waste in LF4. However, historical aerial photographs show two suspected liquid
waste disposal pits located in Northeast and South LF4 and evidence of equipment maintenance
activities near Northeast LF4 . Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and TCE are suspected of having been
used in degreasing and equipment maintenance operations at Ft. Lewis; leaks and spills of
solvents from maintenance operations on or near LF4 and disposal of solvents in unlined pits
are the suspected sources of contamination.
In 1988, a limited site investigation of LF4 was conducted by Batelle's Pacific Northwest
Laboratory: The investigation indicated that the shallow groundwater beneath the landfill was
contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and manganese (Mn).
While the data were not provided in the available references, TCE was reported to have been
found at concentrations ranging from 1 to 32 micrograms per liter (ug/L).
In 1991, Applied Geotechnology Incorporated (AGI) conducted several pre-RI activities including
a test pit investigation, a passive soil gas survey, and a preliminary ecological assessment.
According to AGI, the results of these activities indicated that TCE and PCE were widely
distributed in the area around LF4.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
61
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
• The RI/FS, completed in 1993 by AGI, included a more extensive landfill and soil gas survey and
a groundwater investigation. The Rl confirmed the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons and
aromatic hydrocarbons contamination at LF4. Elevated levels of TCE, PCE, and dichloroethene
(DCE) were detected in the soil. TCE, VC and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
(BTEX) contamination was detected in the groundwater. Elevated levels of Mn were also
detected in the groundwater along the western borders of South and Northwest LF4. However,
the Rl attributes these elevated levels to the dissolution of Mn from geologic materials in the
area of LF4.
Remedy Selection (6, 9):
• In a Record of Decision (ROD) signed in October 1993, the remedy selected for LF4 included
treatment of contaminated soils in areas that were suspected sources of groundwater
contamination (soil hot spots) using soil vapor extraction (SVE), treatment of contaminated
groundwater using air sparging (AS), monitoring of the upper aquifer to determine the
effectiveness of the selected remedy, and maintenance of institutional controls, including access
restrictions. The groundwater AS system was to work in conjunction with the SVE system.
The ROD also required that Mn be monitored in the groundwater in the localized areas where
elevated levels were detected during the Rl. The ROD specified that if the results of the
monitoring indicated that levels were not declining, then the need for remediation was to be
reevaluated.
• Including limited groundwater extraction and treatment in addition to AS/SVE was considered as
an alternative remedy. However, AS/SVE was determined to be more cost effective than
AS/SVE plus groundwater extraction and treatment while still being protective of human health
and the environment.
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
Kira Lynch and Bill Goss
USAGE Seattle District
CENWS-TB-ET (Lynch)
CENWS-PM-HW (Goss)
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Telephone (Lynch): (206)764-6918
Telephone (Goss): (206) 764-6682
E-mail: kira.p.lynch@usace.army.mil
Bob Kievit
EPA Remedial Project Manager, Region 10
Washington Operations Office
300 Desmend Drive, Suite 102
Lacey.WA 98503
Telephone: (360) 753-9014
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
62
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Applied Geotechnology Inc.
300 120th Avenue, N.E:
Building 4, Suite 215
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Telephone: (206) 453-8383
(Conducted RI/FS under contract to USAGE)
Fred Luck, P.E.
Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. (GSA)
3150 Richards Road, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005-4446
Telephone: (206) 519-0300
(Designed, constructed, and operated the AS/SVE system under contract to USAGE)
MATRIX AN(D CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (in situ)
Groundwater
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Volatiles (Halogenated):
Metals:
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
Dichloroethene (DCE)
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride (VC)
Manganese (Mn)
Chemical Name
Dichloroethene
(DCE)
Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)
Trichloroethene
(TCE)
Vinyl Chloride (VC)
CAS No.
540-59-0
127-18-4
79-01-6
75-01-4
Specific
Gravity1
1.250
(15°/4°)
1.631
(15°/4°)
1.466
(20°/20°)
0.908
(25°/25°)
T,c»xicity .
High
High
High
High
" ' *'
;, Flammability
Flammable
Liquid
Non-
combustible
Combustible
liquid
Flammable
Gas
Solubility/
In Water
(mg/L) _
2,250
150
1,100
2,670
Vapor
Pressure
180-265
mm
14 mm
58mm
3.3 atm
Specific gravity of compound at 20°C referred to water at 4°C (25°/4°) unless otherwise specified
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
63
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS (4}
Soil [4, 6]
• Table 1 presents a summary of the compounds detected during the Rl investigations of landfill gas
(gas probes within the landfill) and soil gas (gas probes in the area surrounding the landfill). As
shown in the table, chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons were detected within LF4 and in the
surrounding soil gas at levels as high as 7 mg/m 3. The maximum TCE concentration was detected
in soil gas at 1.6 mg/m3. The maximum VC and DCE concentrations of 4.1 mg/m 3 and 0.2 mg/m3,
respectively, were detected in the landfill gas.
• TCE flux rates were measured during the Rl in soil gas within LF4 and in the area surrounding LF4.
As shown in Figure 3 high TCE flux rates were measured throughout the area. Within LF4, areas of
high TCE flux rates (>10,000 ion counts) were found in Northeast and South LF4 with the highest
TCE flux rates (^ 100,000 ion counts) measured at the northeast corner of South LF4.
• The Rl also reported that the landfill and soil gas investigations showed elevated concentrations of
PCE, DCE, and VC in various areas at LF4. The Rl also stated that the highest flux rates for PCE
were measured in two areas of Northeast LF4, and in two areas of South LF4.
LEGEND
Estimated Flux Rate:
> 1OO.OOO Ion counts
10,000 -99,999 Ion counts
1,000 -9,999 Ion counts
l-—I* Approximate perimeter of Landfill 4
Not to Scale
Figures: Landfill4: TCE in Soil Gas [6]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
64
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 1: Summary of Compounds Detected in LF4 Landfill Gas and Soil Gas [6]
'• • • ;**• v.-'~\£- '/ ; •-••';• T* ;• ;." '•*,.'
'i's;, .,',».'* . , "j," *'.-%'•':'•**'• . .:{:f
%'^ /(-ym^'^f-gr
<0.06-1.6
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06-3.9
<0.06
<0.06-0.10
<0.06
<0.06-0.21
<0.06
<0.06-0.11
<0.06-1.6
<0.06-0.26
<0.06-0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06-0.10
<0.06
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
65
Final
October 2,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Groundwater [6]
• Table 2 presents a summary of compounds detected during the Rl in the upper and lower aquifers at
LF4. In the upper aquifer TCE was detected at concentrations as high as 79 ug/L, cis-1,2-DCE at
concentrations as high as 7ug/L, and VC at concentrations as high as 7.8 ug/L.
• Figure 4 shows the area where TCE concentrations greater than 5 ug/L were detected in the upper
aquifers during the Rl. The figure shows elevated TCE concentrations throughout the groundwater
beneath LF4 as well as in an area to the west of the landfill.
• PCE was not detected in the Rl groundwater investigation. AGI attributed the lack of PCE in the
groundwater to the degradation of this compound.
Areas in upper aquifer with
TCE concentrations greater
than 5 ug/L, 3/92
Figure 4: TCE concentrations greater than 5 ug/L in the upper aquifer of Landfill 4 [6]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
66
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 2: Summary of Selected Contaminants Detected in LF4 Groundwater During the Rl [6]
i — . — ,' " — : — r-r-TT- r
-. - -. > . Contaminant ; ^: ^ /;
; -, ;; ; Concentration Ranges
Upper Aquifer
VOCs
cis-1,2-DCE
trans-1,2-DCE
TCE
vc ;
Total Metals
Mn
Iron
Dissolved Metals
Mn
Iron |
<0.3-5 jjg/L
<0.2-7 M9/L
<0.2-79 pg/L
<1. 0-7.8 jjg/L
O.01-12 mg/L
<0.088-510 mg/L
1.0-49 mg/L
<0.025-7.7 mg/L
Lower Aquifer
VOCs
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total Metals
Mn
Iron
Dissolved Metals
Mn
Iron
<0.5-2 pg/L
<0.5-0.6 |jg/L
<0.5-5.8 pg/L
<0.5-4 Mg/L
3. 8-1 3 mg/L
0.16-9.3 mg/L
<0.01-0.30 mg/L
<0.0.25-0.24 mg/L
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
67
Final
October 2,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
As shown in Table 2, low levels of BTEX were detected in the lower aquifer (<0.5 ug/L to 5.8
ug/L). However, TCE, DCE, VC, and PCE, while detected in the upper aquifer, were not
detected in the lower aquifer.
Mn and iron were detected in both the upper and lower aquifers (Table 2). The Rl determined
that the elevated levels of Mn were caused by dissolution of manganese from geologic material.
Results of groundwater quality indicator parameters measured during the Rl, including increased
specific conductance, dissolved metals and biochemical oxygen demand, indicated that low
levels of metals and inorganic compounds were leaching from the landfill into the upper aquifer.
However, the parameters were reported to rarely exceed five times their background levels.
There was no evidence of leaching to the lower aquifer.
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE T4. 6. 71
Soil Classification
Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Permeability
Hydraulic conductivity
Effective Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Contaminant Sorption/Soil Organic
Content
Lower Explosive Limit
Presence of Inclusions
Humic Content
Sandy gravel to sandy silty gravel (see Table 3)
Stratigraphic units range from well sorted to unsorted (see
Table 3)
9-12%
Information not provided
232 darcies (sieve analysis) 370 darcies (computer
modeling)
30%
580 -17,000 ppb (as measured during the pilot study)
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
GEOLOGY (4):
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
LF4 is situated on a glacial drift plain with an elevation of 200 to 250 ft above mean sea level
(MSL). During the Rl, six stratigraphically distinct geologic formations were encountered in the
LF4 area. These are summarized in Table 3.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
68
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 3: Geologic Units at LF4 [4, 6, 9]
•,; ';:'-t3e6i^c3pt . .-f^!
Vashon Drift
Discovery Nonglacial Unit
Narrows Glacial Unit
Kitsap Formation
Flett Creek Glacial Unit
Clover Park Nonglacial Unit
;;:-•„. K_ ^^jfjj^f-]:^^
sandy gravel with cobbles
well sorted stratified sand with
occasional gravel bed
oxidized lodgement till - unsorted
dense mixture of silt, sand, gravel
and cobbles
well sorted sand overlying silt with
interbedded sand and peat
oxidized lodgement till overlying
sandy gravel and silty gravel
outwash
stratified sand with silt, gravel, peat
and wood fragments
"•.' -'2/;Thickn^li), : . I'i
- • s,'fc > "' ' "•"•»,•,-' ' ""• -
75
30-70 (absent beneath portions
of northeast and northwest
LF4)
5-80
10-45
70-85
100
Hydrogeology [4,6]
The Rl identified four hydrostratigraphic units - two aquifers and two aquitards, described below.
Upper Aquifer - this aquifer occurs in unconfined conditions (water table) at depths ranging from
ground surface around Sequalitchew Springs and the surrounding lakes to a depth of 43 ft below
ground surface (bgs), with a saturated thickness of 105 to 135 ft. The depth near LF4 generally
ranges from 15 to 25 ft. The upper aquifer is divided into the "upper part" at or near the water
table (Vashon Drift) and the "lower part" for the deeper portions of the aquifer (Discovery
Nonglacial ^unit, Narrows Glacial unit, or Kitsap Formation).
The upper aquifer is recharged by infiltration of precipitation and by lateral groundwater flow
from the east and south. Water elevations are directly affected by precipitation, peaking during
the wet winter and spring months. Groundwater flows from the east and south towards LF4,
then continues in a north/northwest direction. The groundwater also flows west beneath LF4.
Sequalitchew Springs is the primary drinking water source for the fort. Pumping at Sequalitchew
Springs can cause a reverse in the groundwater flow direction southeast of LF4. This reversal in
flow creates a northeast/southwest-trending groundwater divide in the southern portion of
Northeast LF4.
Upper Aquitard - this aquitard consists of the Narrows Glacial Till unit located in the upper
aquifer. This aquitard is most clearly defined at the northern edge of South LF4 and around
Northwest LF4. The upper aquitard beneath the northeast portion of LF4 acts as a hydraulic
dam, creating a large area of flat hydraulic gradients between LF4 and Sequalitchew Lake.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
69
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Middle Aquitard - this aquitard consists of low permeability deposits of silt and peat (Kitsap
Formation) and lodgment till (Flett Creek Glacial unit) which separates the upper and lower
aquifers. This aquitard is laterally extensive and is present beneath the entire landfill area.
Lower Aquifer - groundwater is confined in the lower aquifer and generally flows from east to
west, discharging to Puget Sound.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Soil - Soil Vapor Extraction
Groundwater - Air Sparging
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Post Treatment - Carbon Treatment System (Granular Activated Carbon units for SVE system air
emissions)
TIMELINE M. 61
Date
1940s
1951-1967
1988
1991
1993
October 15, 1993
December 5-1 5, 1994
August 16, 1996
October 1, 1996 and ongoing
: . t; - - Activity; $ ':;; "'• * ^ *•'-;
LF4 used as a gravel quarry and as an equipment storage and
maintenance area
LF4 used for refuse disposal
Battelle's Pacific Northwest Laboratory conducted a limited site
investigation
Pre-Remedial Investigation (Rl) activities conducted
RI/FS completed
Record of Decision signed
AS/SVE Pilot test conducted at LF4
Remedial Action Management Plan completed
AS/SVE full-scale operation, including AS/SVE startup activities at
LF4 (October 1, 1996 to January 29, 1997)
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
70
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Technology Description
• The technology description for this application is discussed separately below for the pilot system
and full-scale system. The pilot system design and testing was performed by USAGE. The full-
scale system design and testing was performed by Garry Struthers Associates (GSA). The
locations of the wells for LF4 are shown in Figure 5.
PILOT SYSTEM T81
Construction
• The pilot system used in this application consisted of 1 air sparging (AS) well, 3 soil vapor
extraction (SVE) wells, 10 vadose zone piezometer (VZP) wells, 2 groundwater monitoring wells,
and 3 dissolved oxygen sensor (DOS) wells, as well as an impermeable plastic cover for the
ground surface and well monitoring equipment. The AS and SVE wells were located near LF4-
MW8A, which had the highest recorded TCE concentrations for ground water in the project area.
• The AS well was used to inject clean air into the aquifer, using an above-ground blower, to strip
volatile contaminants from the aquifer into the soil in the subsurface at the site. Dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentrations in the aquifer were measured during air sparging using DOS wells.
The DO results were used to estimate the radius of influence of the AS well during the pilot test.
The SVE wells were used to extract volatile contaminants from the subsurface soil, and the VSP
wells were used to measure the radius of influence of the SVE wells.
• The impermeable plastic cover was used to enhance the radius of influence for the SVE wells by
moving the air recharge boundary a greater distance from the SVE wells. The cover was
constructed of a 20 millimeter (mil) thick layer of very low density polyethylene (VLDPE) laid
down over a cleared area. The cover had a radius of approximately 200 feet, and was covered
with 4 to 6-inches of gravel to assure tight contact with the ground surface, and to allow for the
use of light vehicular traffic (pickup trucks) over the cover.
Table 4 summarizes well construction details such as number of wells, depth of wells, and depth
of well screen, for each of the 5 types of wells used in the pilot system. All wells were drilled
using a 4-inch inner diameter (ID) hollow stem auger.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
71
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 4. Summary of Construction Details for Wells Used in Pilot System [8]
Type of Well
AS
SVE
VZP
Groundwater
monitoring
DOS
No. of Wells
1
3
10
2
3
Depth of Well
20 ft below
static water
level (SWL);
50 ft below
ground
surface (BGS)
30 ft BGS
30 ft BGS
40 ft BGS
40 ft BGS
Location of
Weil Screen
15 to 20 ft
below SWL
2 ft above
seasonal high
water level
(SHWL)to12
ft above
SHWL
2 ft above
SHWL to 12 ft
above SHWL
1 ft above
SHWL to 7-8
ft below SWL
1 ft above
SHWL to 7-8
ft below SWL
." -, Screen"-'
'Length (ft) ^
^
5
10
10
10
10
ScreenSlot
Openings (in)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Operation
Operation of the pilot system consisted of a SVE pilot test and a combined AS/SVE pilot test.
Details of the operations of the pilot system are discussed under the Treatment Performance
Data section of this report.
FULL-SCALE SYSTEM T21
Construction
• The full-scale system used in this application consisted of 5 AS wells, 6 SVE wells, 10 VZP
wells, 3 groundwater monitoring weJIs, 3 DOS wells, 4 passive injection wells, and associated
well-monitoring equipment. Figure 5 shows the relative locations of these wells. Passive
injection wells were placed at locations where modeling results showed significant stagnation
zones when 2 adjacent SVE wells were operated at the same time. The full-scale system used
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
72
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
the same impermeable plastic cover for the ground surface that was used in the pilot system.
Two parallel systems of vapor-phase granular activated carbon (GAG) were used in the full-
scale system.
Figure 6 is; a process flow diagram showing the equipment used in the full-scale SVE system.
As shown on Figure 6, extracted vapors were first treated using a moisture (water/vapor)
separator to remove entrained water, followed by treatment using activated carbon filter
canisters (GAG), prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
Figure 7 is a process flow diagram showing the equipment used in air sparging at the site. As
shown in Figure 7, air sparging consisted of an inlet particulate filter, compressor, moisture
separator, and flow control valve.
The six SVE wells were piped to two parallel treatment trains, each consisting of a water/vapor
separator, a blower, and two vapor-phase GAG canisters. These two sets of parallel equipment
were operated to provide additional insurance that the system performance would not be
affected by a system breakdown.
VZP-E-10
Gate
RA-SVE6
LEGEND
VZP-E-10
^ -Vadose Zone Piezometers
ASW-5
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Water/vapor
separator with
level gauge
Vacuum
blower
Relief
Ground level
Soil vapor
extraction
(6 wells)
To
atmosphere
Sample
port
Water table
V j t
Sample
port
Inlet filter
Activated
carbon filter
canisters
• Sample
port
Figure 6: SVE Schematic for Landfill 4 [2]
Relief
valve
Inlet —v | Generator [•
silencer
Inlet
particulate
filter
Flow
control
valve
Ground level
Air
sparge
(5 wells)"
Figure 7: AS Schematic for Landfill 4 [2]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
74
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Operation
• Initial startup of the full-scale system was conducted in three phases. A detailed discussion of
the startup activities is included in the Treatment Performance Data section of this report. The
operating parameters affecting treatment cost or performance are presented below.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE T21
Operating Parameter
Value and Units
Soil Vapor Extraction System
Air flow rate
Operating vacuum
Operating time
Temperature
440 - 1290 cfm
5-inches mercury vacuum
at blower inlet
Continuous
85-155°F
Air Sparging System
Air flow rate
Operating pressure
Operating time
60 -210 cfm
7 pounds per square inch
(psi) (design value)
Cyclical
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES f4. 5. 9.14.15]
• The ROD specified four objectives for the remedy: to prevent exposure to contaminated
groundwater, to restore the contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use (drinking water), to
minimize movement of contaminants from soil to groundwater, and to prevent exposure to the
contents of the landfill.
• No soil cleanup levels were identified in the available reference material.
The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the upper aquifer beneath the site were:
TCE - 5 ug/L - MCL from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
VC -1 ug/L - the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Method B
Monitoring of Mn was required along the western border of South and Northwest LF4 to
determine any changes in concentration.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
75
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
• A site-specific air emission threshold limit of 2.5 parts per million volume (ppmv) TCE was
calculated by USAGE using Screen Model 3 and the PSAPCA acceptable source impact levels.
The air stream between the first and second carbon canisters are monitored every other week
using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID breakthrough action level is 1.5 ppmv total
VOCs. The breakthrough action level is used to determine when the first carbon bed needs to
be removed from service.
To assess the overall performance of the system, performance monitoring is required throughout
the operation of the system. The specific requirements are detailed in the Compliance
Monitoring Plan [5] and include contaminant reduction monitoring to evaluate progress towards
achieving the cleanup goals, contaminant migration monitoring to confirm that the plume is
being contained, and contaminant treatment monitoring for air emissions.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA AND PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT
Treatment performance data were available for the pilot study, the initial startup activities (Phases 1, 2,
and 3) for the full-scale system, and the ongoing full-scale system (through October 31,1997).
Treatment Plan
• The treatment plan for this project include several stages: 1) installation and operation of a pilot-
scale study of the AS/SVE system to assess the potential of the system to meet the required
cleanup goals within a time frame of 2-5 years; 2) detailed design and installation of the full-
scale AS/SVE system followed by a three-phase startup of the system; and 3) full-scale system
operation and maintenance activities.
• The pilot test was conducted from December 5-15, 1994. Startup activities were conducted in
three phases from October 1,1996 - January 29, 1997. Full-scale operations are ongoing and
performance data is available for operations through October 31,1997.
Performance Data Assessment - Pilot Study [7, 8]
• The pilot study included pilot test design, well installation, cover installation, and running the pilot
system. The pilot test was located in the area near well MW8A, where the highest level of TCE
in groundwater had been reported. The wells were installed and developed from June to August
1994; the cover was installed from October 3 to December 4, 1994. The actual pilot test was run
from December 5 to December 9,1994 as a series of five 8-hour tests and from December 11 to
December 15, 1994 as one 72-hour continuous test.
• The first two 8-hour tests used the SVE system only. For the remaining three 8-hour tests, the
SVE system was operated for the first two hours, then the AS system was turned on and
operated with the SVE system for the remaining 6 hours. For the 72-hour continuous test, the
SVE system was run alone for the first 24 hours; the AS and SVE systems were then operated
together for the remaining 48 hours. During the AS process, air was injected through the air
sparging well into the aquifer using an above ground blower to create an "in-situ" air stripping
effect. Air extracted from the SVE wells was sent through granular activated carbon units prior
to discharge to the atmosphere.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
76
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Soil Gas
Soil gas samples were collected on an hourly basis from well SVE-4 and analyzed for TCE, VC,
DCE, and PCE by an on-site mobile laboratory. TCE was the only target analyte detected in the
soil gas samples in the field.
The results for TCE are presented in Table 5 for each of the 8-hour tests and in Table 6 for the
72-hour test.
As shown in Table 5, during the first two 8-hour runs (SVE only), TCE concentrations decreased
from 185 ppb to 145 ppb during the first run and from 160 ppb to 125 ppb during the second run.
During the three remaining runs, the system was operated as SVE only for the first two hours of
operation followed by 6 hours of operation with AS. The results of samples collected during the
SVE only period (hours 0-2) showed TCE concentrations decreased from initial concentrations
in the 150 ppb to 170 ppb range to concentrations in the 120 ppb to 150 ppb range after two
hours of operation. TCE concentrations following AS startup (hours 2-6) showed decreases for
all three days - about 16% (day 3), 8% (day 4) and 40% (day 5). The final TCE concentration
achieved on day 5 was 90 ppb.
As shown in Table 6, the results of the first 24-hours of the 72-hour test (SVE only) TCE
concentrations decreased from 235 ppb to 120 ppb after the first hour of operation, then to 110
ppb after 24 hours of operation. At the startup of the AS system (hour 25), TCE concentrations
initially decreased to 25 ppb, then increased to 94 ppb. (In Chemical Data Report #1, this initial
decrease in TCE concentration was attributed to dilution of soil gas in the vadose zone from the
addition of atmospheric air by the AS well.) After 72 hours of operation, TCE concentrations had
decreased to 56 ppb.
Table 5. TCE Concentrations (ppbv) in Soil Gas, LF4, 8 Hour Tests (Pilot Study) [7]
December 5 & 6 SVE only, December 7-9 combined AS/SVE with SVE-Only First 2 Hours
& : ^•^^•.KsV^^.r '- ^.. •
0
1
1.5
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.8
8
£.;S5§-tec, «. •
—
—
185
—
: 180
! 190
;
190
--
140
—
150
—
i 145
\
#.£?,. . '-4*jft-'tt ****&' ' *n^
w-?- .-HSfeJjlF^y/^S
95
160
—
160
150
—
140
—
140
—
125
—
—
—
—
::iO?^Dicig.ii
150
140
—
120
150
—
140
—
125
—
110
—
100
—
—
j:^8^C;;1g-:S
170
135
—
120
120
—
120
-.-
110
—
100
—
95
—
110
^•^•tffvias
170
150
—
150
110
—
110
—
110
—
95
—
100
—
90
— - No sample analyzed
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
77
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 6. TCE Concentrations (ppbv) Soil Gas, L.F4,72 Hour Test (Pilot Study) [7]
0-24 hours SVE only, 24-72 hours combined AS/SVE
HR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TCE
235
120
160
150
150
—
150
—
150
150
150
150
160
150
120
115
—
120
—
115
120
120
110
—
110
- - No sample analyzed
--•"'•' W:' *;
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
25
94
—
3.5
—
22
—
39
9
29
57
52
12
—
18
64
—
51
44
—
—
—
—
—
—
"- • ..HR
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
...
~
* ofs TCE'
—
52
—
51
—
39
—
51
48
50
52
~
53
59
59
59
59
—
59
58
59
56
—
—
—
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
78
Final
October 2,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Groundwater
Groundwater samples were collected from wells before and after each sparging event and
analyzed for volatile organic compounds by method 8010. As discussed above, the sparging
events took place on December 7, 8, and 9 (about 6 hours each in duration) and during the final
48 hours of the 72-hour continuous test (December 11-15). Other parameters measured
included vacuum pressure for SVE, dissolved oxygen in the aquifer before, during and after air
sparging and during SVE operation.
TCE was the only volatile organic compound detected in the groundwater samples. Elevated
TCE concentrations were found in wells DOS-1, DOS-2, and MW8, which were located closest
to the sparge well. Table 7 presents the TCE concentrations detected in the three wells.
As shown in Table 7, data from DOS-1, DOS-2 and MW8A show an overall decrease in TCE
concentrations. For DOS-1, there was an overall decrease in TCE concentrations from about
330 ppb to 170 ppb and for DOS-2, from 220 ppb to 170 ppb. For MW8A, TCE concentrations
decreased from 140 ppb to 23 ppb.
The effect of sparging on TCE concentrations varied by well. For DOS-1 and DOS-2, TCE
concentrations decreased after sparge events 2, 3, and 4 but remained unchanged after sparge
event 1. For MW8A, TCE concentrations decreased after sparge events 2 and 4 but increased
after sparge events 1 and 3. Possible reasons given in Chemical Data Report #1 for the
observed increases in TCE concentrations in MW8A after sparging were fluctuations in the
water level, which may have created a smear zone, or introduction of new source material
caused when precipitation onto the contaminated soil infiltrated into the groundwater.
Table 7: TCE Concentrations Detected in Wells DOS-1, DOS-2, and MW8A [7]
Sample
Date
12/6
Sparge 1
12/7
12/8
Sparge 2
12/8
12/9
Sparge 3
12/9
12/11
Sparge 4
12/15
DOS-1
Time
2030
1700
630
1700
630
170
830
830
TCE
(ppb)
30
330, 310
300
280
300
280
300
240, 170
DOS-2
Time
1900
1830
600
1630
630
1700
830
800
TCE
(ppb)
220
220
200
170
190, 190
170
190
170
MW8A
Time
1830
1800
700
1800
700
1800
930
930
TCE
(ppb)
140, 86
150
190
140, 130
120
140
110
27,23
Two rounds of groundwater sampling were performed for Mn - before sparging and after sparging.
The results1 are presented in Table 8. As shown in this table, Mn concentrations decreased after
sparging in seven of 11 wells and increased in five of the 11 wells. The greatest increases in Mn
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
79
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
concentrations were observed in wells MW10 (69 ppb to 440 ppb) and DOS-2 (290 ppb to 360
ppb).
During the Rl, elevated Mn levels were attributed to dissolution of geologic materials by landfill
leachate in the area of LF4.
Table 8: Mn Concentrations in Groundwater [7]
Well
ASW-1
MW8A
MW8B
DOS-1
DOS-2
PNL-3
MW3B
MW5
MW10
SW-MW-1
NW-MW-2
Pre-Sparge tMnlppI^ ""
17
6.1
11
680
290
7.7
5.1
58
69
23
2700
^
12
3.9
ND
660
360
ND
4.6
60
440
30
2500
ND-Not detected
Performance Data Assessment - Full-Scale System Startup Activities [1]
• The startup activities for this system were conducted from October 1, 1996 to January 29, 1997
and included an initial SVE startup (Phase 1), initial sparging startup (Phase 2), and total system
startup (Phase 3). In addition, two rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted during the
startup activities.
Phase 1 - Initial SVE Startup Activities:
Phase 1 was conducted from October 17 to November 17, 1996, and included six individual well
tests and a combined system test to determine mass removal rates, site heterogeneity, proximity
to contaminant sources, and optimal extraction rates. Vapor samples collected during this phase
were analyzed by an on-site lab.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
80
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
The original; test plan as defined in the LF4 RAMP, called for each well to be operated at 100 scfm
until stabilization had occurred. Stabilization was defined as "after 24 hours of SVE operation at
the specified extraction flow rate have elapsed, and the percent difference between the current
extracted gas TCE concentration and each of the prior three samples is less than 20 percent."
After stabilization had occurred, the extraction rate was to be increased by 25 scfm. If after one
hour the mass removal rate was higher, then the extraction rate was to again be increased by 25
scfm, with this "step-up" process continuing as long as the extraction rate increased (to a
maximum of 150 scfm). A minimum shutdown period of 24-hours was scheduled between each
well test to allow the system to return to equilibrium and contaminant concentrations to stabilize.
Figures 8-19 summarize the analytical data collected during the initial startup activities. Figures 8-
13 show the mass removal rate in mg/min for each of the 6 wells, while Figures 14-19 show the
concentration in mg/flf3 for each of these wells. In addition, these figures show the extraction rate
used in each well at each point of the test.
Mass removal and concentration data were measured at a sample point in the above ground
equipment after moisture separation and prior to the activated carbon filter canister. Mass
removal was calculated as the product of the concentration and extraction air flow rate.
Well SVE-1 was operated according to the original plan, starting at 100 scfm. As shown in Figure
8, stabilization was achieved after 28 hours, and the extraction flow rate was increased to 125
scfm for 8 hours, during which time the mass removal rate increased from 22 to 41 mg/min. The
extraction flow rate was then increased to 150 scfm for 36 hours, during which time the mass
removal rate increased to 110 mg/min, and was reported to still be increasing at the end of the
test. TCE concentration data for SVE-1 (Figure 14) shows a corresponding increase in
concentration levels in the soil gas (from about 0.13 mg/ft3 to over 0.70 mg/ft3) as the extraction
flow rate increased.
Based on the results of well SVE-1, the testing procedure was modified to allow for testing at
higher extraction rates for the remaining wells. Wells SVE-2 to SVE-6 were tested at rates of up
to 600 scfm.
Wells SVE-2 to SVE-5, were operated at two extraction rates (starting at 100 scfm and increased
to 600 scfm after about 1.5 hours of operation). As shown in Figures 9 through 12, the increase in
extraction rate resulted in a sharp increase in the TCE mass removal rate, with all five wells
achieving their maximum removal rates at 600 scfm. The maximum TCE mass removal rates
achieved by each well were about 250 mg/min (SVE-2), 275 mg/min (SVE-3), 170 mg/min (SVE-
4), and 380 mg/min (SVE-5). TCE concentrations (Figures 14 through 19) in the vapor samples
from each well showed corresponding increases in concentrations as the extraction rate
increased.
Well SVE-6 was operated at 100,150, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 scfm. As with wells SVE-2 to
SVE-5, the maximum TCE mass removal rate and concentration were achieved at 600 scfm. As
shown in Figures 13 and 19, the greatest increases were observed when the extraction rate was
increased from 200 to 300 scfm, from 300 to 400 scfm and from 500 to 600 scfm.
While the data for the SVE wells showed that operation at 600 scfm resulted in higher TCE mass
removal rates and concentrations in the vapor flow operation than at lower extraction rates,
Chemical Data Report #1 concluded that the data did not provide a further indication of the
optimal extraction rate for an individual well. Therefore, the "optimal" extraction rate" for the SVE
wells at LF4 was determined to be in the range of 150 to 600 scfm.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
81
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Tims Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 8: Well SVE-1 TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 9: Well SVE-2 TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1J
400
j.350.
1300.
I250'
1 150-
I 100-
if
l
a
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 10: Well SVE-3 TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 11: Well SVE-4 TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1]
9.350
|300
f 25Q.
cc
f 200'
S. 150.
| 100-
g*
0
i
S
A
\!\K
/ ^^*"
i
ii
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 12: Well SVE-S TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1]
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Tlma Since Start ot Test, t (hours)
*— Extraction began @ 100scfm
Figure 13: Well SVE-6 TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
82
Final
October 2,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
0.80
0.70
S 0.60
~0.50
£
1 0.40'
g 0.30
o
0.10'
0.00'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 14: Well SVE-1 TCE Concentration vs. Time [1]
0.80
0.70
§0.60
'ra
ffl.50
20.40
c
§0.30
O
£0.20-1
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 15: Well SVE-2 TCE Concentration vs. Time [1]
0.80-
0.70'
fo.60<
fo.50'
Q
lfl.40-
10.30
O
gO.20-
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 16: Well SVE-3 TCE Concentration vs. Time [1]
0.80
0.70
§0.60
I
-0.50
c 0.30
O
gO.20*
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 17: Well SVE-4 TCE Concentration vs. Time [1]
0.00
0 10 20 : 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
Figure 18: Well SVE-5 TCE Concentration vs. Time [I]
L.E
30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100 110
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
•* Extraction began ® lOOscfm
Figure 19: Well SVE-6 TCE Concentration vs. Time II]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
83
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
• The full system was tested during an initial 48- hour period with SVE only, to allow stabilization of
TCE removal, followed by 48 hours where the air sparge wells were operated individually at
varying flow rates of 50, 75, and 100 scfm. Data on the full system test conducted during Phase 1
are presented in Figures 20 and 21. During the SVE-only period of operation, the TCE mass
removal rate and TCE concentration remained relatively stable. The TCE mass removal rate
remained approximately the same (225 mg/min) when AS-3 and AS-4 were operated at 50 scfm
and 100 scfm, but decreased (to 160 mg/min) when these wells were operated at 75 scfm each.
For wells AS-2 and AS-5 increasing the air flow rate resulted in a decrease in the TCE mass
removal rate and concentration. Operation of the full-system with all wells adjusted to 90 scfm,
then decreased to 75 scfm, resulted in a decrease in TCE mass removal rates from approximately
100 mg/min to 50 mg/min.
• For the Phase 1 full-scale system, there was an overall decrease in TCE mass removal rates and
concentration. As discussed under Phase 2 and 3, this overall TCE concentration decrease may
have masked the changes from the operation of the AS wells.
Phases 2 and 3 - Initial Sparging and Full System Startup:
• As described above, initial testing of the AS wells at varying air flow rates was performed as part
of the full system test under Phase 1. During Phase 2 and 3, additional testing of the AS wells
and the full system was performed under varying operating conditions in order to determine the
optimal system settings for full scale operation. Phase 2 activities were conducted from
November 18 to November 21, 1996 and Phase 3 activities were conducted from November 21,
1996 to January 29, 1997. Because Phases 2 and 3 activities are interrelated, the performance of
the system during these startup activities is discussed together.
• Phase 2 startup activities included operating the individual sparge wells to collect data on injection
pressure and flow rate. Each sparge well was tested at 50, 75, and 100 scfm to determine
breakthrough, defined as when the system air pressure was sufficient to overcome the
combination of the static water head in the sparge well and the resistance of the soil formation in
the immediate area of the sparge well). During the initial sparging activities, all SVE wells were
operated at an extraction rate of 200 scfm (1200 scfm for the system). The results of the
breakthrough pressure testing are presented in Table 9. These data were used in calculating air
flow rates for the AS wells that would be used in system optimization.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
84
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 9: Initial Sparge Testing Data [1]
'•''/ ,
Sparge well "I
ASW-1
ASW-2
ASW-3
ASW-4
ASW-5
Breakthrough
Pressure (psi) '*
7.0
7.75
6.4
7.0
8.25
50scfmt0.70fn,
> bW20J psS {!
7.75
8.5
6.5
7.5
8.25
TfrscfmfUS in ,r
ofH20jpsi {
9.5
9.0
6.6
8.25
8.5
100 sefm [2.60 in
pHl201psj.
9.5
10.0
6.6
8.25
8.5
During the total system test, the system was operated under a number of settings, with
adjustments made to determine the optimum system settings for maximum contaminant removal.
The full system was operated using a combination of cycling of the sparge wells on and off and
varying the extraction rates and extraction wells used. According to Chemical Data Report #1,
when the line of sparge wells is perpendicular to the direction of the groundwater flow, as in the
case of LF4, air injection can create air entrainment in the aquifer which can significantly lower the
hydraulic conductivity, causing the groundwater to flow around, rather than through, the wells. By
cycling the sparge wells on and off, this problem can be alleviated. When the sparge wells are off,
water flows normally into the sparge area and is then treated when the wells are turned on.
••=• ::
!•=: :•
••=! ::
Mil II
hi; ii
HI! "
10 20
30
40
5O 6O 7O 80 90 100 110
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
120 130 140 150
Figure 20: Full system (Phase 1) TCE Mass Removal Rate vs. Time [1]
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
85
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
CO
LLJ
O
20
40 60 80 100 120
Time Since Start of Test, t (hours)
140
160
Figure 21: Full System (Phase 1) TCE Concentration vs. Time [1]
The system settings used during the full system test are presented in Table 10. Specific
adjustments made to the system include:
1. Equal usage of extraction wells (each well set at about 200 scfm) with injection flow rates
and well usage varied to determine ideal injection well usage method. (21Nov96-1Dec96
& 25Jan97-29Jan97)
2. Extraction concentrated on SVE-3 (hot spot identified in Phase 1) with injection flow rates
and well usage varied to determine ideal injection well usage method for "hot spots."
(2Dec96-21Dec96)
3. Extraction concentrated primarily on individual well pairs to determine if an extraction rate
of 450 to 600 scfm at a pair of wells would be more efficient than equal extraction of all six
wells at 200scfm. Injection flow rates and well usage were varied to determine ideal
injection well usage method. (21 Dec96-22Jan97)
4. Operation of passive injection wells to determine if usage of this type of well would
accelerate contaminant removal in "dead zones" (areas where modeling performed by
USAGE indicated areas of stagnant or "dead" air). (23Nov96-17Dec96).
Table 11 presents data on TCE mass removal rates and concentrations over time, and include
data on the changes to the extraction flow rates and air flow rates of the full system. During the
full system operation, TCE mass removal rates decreased from 110 mg/min to 42 mg/min and
TCE concentrations decreased from 660 ppb to 217 ppb.
Table 12 shows the airflow and TCE removal data from system startup activities, including volume
of air injected and soil gas extracted, mass of TCE removed, and mass of TCE removed per
volume of air extracted. This table shows those results individually by well for Phase 1, during the
Phase 1 full-system test, during the test of Phase 2 and 3, and for the total of all startup activities.
As shown in Table 12, the mass of TCE removed varied from 0.53 to 3.21 Ibs for a well during
Phase 1, with the Phase 1 full system test removing 2.73 Ibs of TCE and the test of Phases 2 and
3 removing 14.92 Ibs of TCE. A total of 25.87 Ibs of TCE were removed during startup activities.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
86
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
Table 10: System Settings Used During Phase 2 and 3 Startup [1]
''. . : ' ' • • '
w
1
Passive Injection Wells
PIW-1
PIW-2
PIW-3
PIW-4
Extraction Wells
RA-SVE-1 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-2 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-3 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-6 Flow Rate (scfm)
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
8
|
. . ^ „ .. _ .
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
200
210
190
210
230
200
210
210
210
220
220
220
Sparge Wells
ASW-1 Flow Rate (scfm) _
ASW-2 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-3 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
Mode
80
60
Closed
70
Closed
80
30
Closed
30
Closed
% •••-:•
O) .
i-T
w
O'-- •
. _ _ .
Open
Open
Open
Open
200
200
200
210
210
210
80
70
Closed
50
Closed
%
o>
V
O
Q
•*:'
?J
w ;
8 ;
Q
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
200
200
190
200
220
210
400
400
400
Closed
Closed
Closed
CO
?
O
Open
Open
Open
Closed
400
390
390
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Equal extraction rates
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
90
90
%
O> • : -
T- ' '
|C :
d
&
_
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
410
410
420
Closed
Closed
1
CN
0
&
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
390
420
450
Closed
Closed
fe
O)
to
c
CO
—)•
fe •'•
o>
O
c .
CD
-5
fe
O> : :
••*"
. C-... •
•r
.„ , .
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
570
Closed
Closed
630
Closed
Closed
480
150
130
510
Closed
100
Closed
Closed
90
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Concentrated extraction
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
50
60
Closed
50
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
600
600
Closed
Closed
110
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
1
CO
T"'
c
ffl :
-^
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
580
650
Closed
Closed
tv
••'•*.
•=''T- "
S
••••»'
• —>
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
490
120
110
510
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Well pairs
en
CM
c
ra
: • ~~>
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
210
220
210
200
230
220
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Equal
extraction
rates
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
87
Draft
September 23,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table 11: Phase 2-3 Startup Results [1]
Activity Date
18-Nov-96
21-Nov-96
23-Nov-96
27-Nov-96
01-Dec-96
09-Dec-96
13-Dec-96
17-Dec-96
21-Dec-96
26-Dec-96
03-Jan-97
06-Jan-97
10-Jan-97
14-Jan-97
18-Jan-97
24-Jan-97
26-Jan-97
27-Jan-97
29-Jan-97
Leg A
Extraction
Flow Rate
(cfm)
560
540
560
575
580
550
600
620
600
675
0
590
600
610
630
620
600
690
645
LegB
Extraction
Flow Rate
(cfm)
540
540
590
575
590
540
600
620
570
675
0
580
630
610
600
580
600
0
645
Total
Sparge
Flow Rate
225
210
240
240
0
0
180
190
0
290
0
200
160
110
0
0
0
0
0
TCE
Concentration
(ppbv)
660
546
532
675
480
450
390
450
450
0.0
460
281
266
270
235
226
226
217
TCE Mass
Removal Rate
Total (mg/min)
110
108
95
93
119
79
82
73
80
2
0
81
52
49
50
43
41
24
42
Total
Cumulative
Mass Extracted
(mg)
90051
547755
813912
1371490
2014791
2955393
3406284
3827419
4311638
4947817
4947817
5274519
5585439
5874816
6153621
6524735
6607192
6658732
6779623
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
88
Final
October 2,199«
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
Table 12: Airflow and TCE Removal Summary for System Startup Activities [7]
^ - " , '" ''*',") • ' ~ ** '
••^ •***„ " •''* •• " ~.
•' .-• r-~ ,-\- -, , :-.,.•/
•---• -•- -• •*» -TV.; - ^ '.
- - "•• •• , 1; Vs-' ,-• *,. i
•-. ' . ,'": • •*: -\.t. *>-••
iWjtj Period '•};
^§'-»-':;'--"":>-0.-/'.v
3>'o'vw;-'i?;'-'fe-;'
.' " , X ' ., ""V/'v '"i "*•
if V . "-. v-'-;i ,\: ~;-Y •;•"$••;
"Total Air Injected
K(nHllioWo%ef)/-
' i'J&l *""-" '^* '^"" ~' ^ ' -''
»^'5v, - '-- " ~ x''--SI"V"*- ;ii:
^•T«^loili®fo'-V
Vr" Busied -^
{milliQnslofft3)i;?
^|x^%fe'S;'"J
:-^fola;|^|a.st of~ '<
TCEKembved
f,;:n-;::(i68>.'5 ^
'•:,-;, '^/Iass-ttfT<|E;,r;A
- removed per
/-r|illion cu^bic feet
•f ..% ¥ir extracted,'.;
$,>i i. (Ibs^'^f
Phase 1 - Individual Wells
SVE-1
SVE-6
SVE-2 .:
SVE-5
SVE-3
SVE-4
Phase 1 - Full
System Test
Phases 2&3 Test
Startup Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.22
9.69
10.91
0.56
3.03
2.38
1.54
1.51
1.3
10.30
109.18
129.86
0.53
3.21
1.43
1.40
1.06
0.58
2.73
14.92
25.87
0.95
1.06
0.60
0.91
0.71
0.43
0.26
0.14
0.20
While VC was not measured during startup activities, Chemical Data Report #1 estimated that a
maximum of 0.093 Ibs of VC were removed from the subsurface during startup activities. This
estimate was based on one sample collected from the location where VC levels had been
detected. Because this estimate did not account for areas where VC was not detected, it was
concluded that the actual quantity of VC removed is likely to be significantly less than the
estimate.
The effect of sparging on the system was reported in Chemical Data Report #1 to be difficult to
quantify because of the overall TCE concentration decrease. While TCE concentrations
decreased during sparging events, they also continued to decrease when the sparging wells were
not operational. For example, from November 21 to 27 when air sparging was conducted, TCE
concentrations decreased from 660 ppb to 532 ppb. When the air sparging wells were turned off
(December 1), TCE concentrations initially increased to 675 ppb. However, for the next sampling
event (December 9), TCE concentrations had decreased to 480 ppb even though the air sparging
wells remained closed.
Sampling data from the period when the passive injection wells were operated (November 27 to
December 17) showed TCE concentrations initially increasing from 532 ppb to 675 ppb, then
decreasing to 390 ppb. However, the specific effect of the operation of these wells is not evident
as the extraction flow rates and use of the AS wells were varied during this time period.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
89
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
• Because of the significant decreases in TCE concentrations during Phases 2 and 3, the optimal
system settings were not determined. The results of the startup activities were used to establish
the tentative system settings that were used for the second and third quarters of operation, during
which time the operation of the system was continuously adjusted. These settings include
operating SVE wells 1-6 between 210 and 150 scfm; cycling the sparging wells, and leaving the
passive injection wells closed.
Performance Data Assessment - Full-Scale System Operation [13]
• The full-scale system operation began when the startup activities were completed on January 29,
1997, and is currently ongoing. Performance data through October 31,1997 were included in
Chemical Data Report #2, which was the most recent document used in preparation of this report.
• The system settings used during the full-scale system operation between February 6, 1997 and
October 31, 1997, including SVE and air sparging system flow rates, TCE concentrations in the
extracted soil gas, and TCE mass removal rates are summarized in Appendix A, Table A-1.
• In general, the SVE system was operated at between 0 and 1,290 cfm extracted, and the air
sparging system was operated at between 0 and 210 cfm injected. The passive air injection wells
remained closed between February 6, 1997 and July 9, 1997, after which they were opened. It
was determined that the passive injection wells should remain open unless a detrimental effect
could be demonstrated.
• The concentration of TCE in the soil gas extracted by the SVE system generally decreased from
210 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to 140 ppbv during the period of February 6, 1997 through
July 18,1997. The extracted soil gas concentration then increased to a maximum of 640 ppbv
during the period of July 31,1997 through October 31,1997. This increase generally corresponds
to the opening of the passive injection wells after July 9,1997, suggesting that the use of the
passive injection wells enhanced the system's performance.
Groundwater Sampling:
• Seven rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted (two before the remediation system was
installed and five after). The first round of sampling was performed during March 1992 and the
last round for which data is available was performed in October 1997.
• TCE was the only contaminant in groundwater consistently identified above the cleanup levels
established for the site. In addition, monitoring for Mn was required. The average concentrations
of TCE and Mn measured in Contaminant Reduction monitoring wells and Migration Monitoring
wells during the seven groundwater monitoring rounds are summarized in Table 13.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
90
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill4
Table 13: TCE and Mn Groundwater Results [13]
*> 'x '•:•', . 'T °"r
~* v Date , •
March 92
June 92
October 96 (after
remediation system
was installed)
January 97
April 97
July 97
October 97
', Average TCE Concentration - > / ';
- . •;,- fan.). ; .;. ; ••-.
<§Rttr - '
79.0
37.0
69.7
13.9
10.7
14.5
6.4
- '" MR12 "', "
4.3
6.6
12.0
7.0
4.5
3.8
4.2
Average Total Mn Concentration
' , -V^^g/M
-VV'i-CRM1" \
11,000
1,400
4.2
4.0
3.5
2.0
8.0
-MK/I2
488.0
361.2
89.0
172.0
95.5
51.0
40.0
Notes:
1 Average concentration from Contaminant Reduction Monitoring wells
2 Average concentration from Migration Monitoring wells
• The average TCE concentration in the Contaminant Reduction Monitoring wells has decreased
from 79 to 6:4 ng/L from March 1992 to October 1997, while the average TCE concentration in the
Migration Monitoring wells has showed no consistent trend (average concentrations have ranged
from 3.78 to 12.03 ng/L). TCE concentrations in both areas were still above the site cleanup level
of 5 ng/L in October 1997.
• The average total Mn concentration in the Contaminant Reduction Monitoring wells has
decreased from a high of 11,000 ng/L in March 1992 to 8.0 ng/L in October 1997, while the
average Mn concentration in the Migration Monitoring wells has generally decreased from 488.0
to 40.0
• Vinyl chloride, the other contaminant with a cleanup level for the site, was only detected above
method detection limits on one occasion and was never detected above site cleanup levels.
Air Emissions Sampling:
• Based upon the effluent sampling by the emissions monitoring system, the PSAPCA emission
action levels; were not exceeded during the SVE system operation.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (6. 13)
According to the technical memorandum on the results of the pilot study [7], the required QA/QC
samples were collected. Field duplicates, field blanks, rinseate blanks, and travel blanks were
required in the final management plan for the LF4 pilot study [8] for QA/QC of the field study
sampling program. Method blanks, reagent blanks, matrix spike samples, matrix spike duplicates,
duplicates, and laboratory control samples were required for laboratory QA/QC. No exceptions to
the QA/QC procedures were noted in the available reference materials.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
91
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
The data quality for the startup activities is summarized in Table 14. With the exception of
dissolved oxygen, no significant data quality problems were identified. The dissolved oxygen data
were determined to be unacceptable as a result of significant fluctuations measured from the
sensors.
Table 14: Summary of Data Quality for Startup Activities [1]
Analyte/Parameter
TCE, VC, DCE and
PCE (Air emissions)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (Air
emissions)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (Water)
Dissolved and Total
Manganese (Water)
Dissolved Oxygen
Technology
Mobile Laboratory and
Photoionization
Detector (PID)
Laboratory and
Summa™ Canisters
Laboratory GC/MS
Laboratory GC/MS
Dissolved Oxygen
Sensors
EPA, Method
8021
TO-14
8260
6010
N/A
/ *-'"
Method used to calculate mass
removal rates.
No significant data quality
problems identified.
Method used to quantify
concentrations of organic
constituents in air samples; these
concentrations were used to
calculate mass removal rates.
For air emissions, method TO-14
was used for confirmation of the
primary measurement system
(portable PID). Data are
acceptable for computing mass
removal rates.
Data used to provide water
quality results as per the ROD.
No significant data quality
problems identified.
Data used to provide water
quality results as per the ROD.
No significant data quality
problems identified.
All data was rejected as a result
of significant fluctuations
measured from both sensors.
According to the contractor, there were no significant data quality problems identified during the
Full-Scale System Operation.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
92
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
• Limited information on the procurement process for the pilot study is provided in the available
references. The USAGE prepared a government cost estimate [10] and requested bids in August
1994.
• For the full-scale system, the USAGE issued a Basic Ordering Agreement to GSA for remediation
of LF4 at Ft: Lewis, under contract number DACA67-95-G0001, Task Order No. 28. The USAGE
negotiated the contract in May 1996.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Pilot Study [10]
The government estimate for the cost for the AS/SVE pilot system was $241,193. A cost
breakdown is shown below.
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Site Work
Access Road
Total
5,547
222,528
13,118
$241,193
Full-scale System [11]
• The original negotiated costs for the LF4 remediation included $206,954 for carbon replacement
and $189,652 for air emissions sampling to determine compliance with PSAPCA requirements.
According to the USAGE [12], the concentrations of contaminants in air emissions from the
system were subsequently determined to be below the allowable air emissions standards.
USAGE negotiated with PSAPCA to allow USAGE to eliminate the requirement to change out the
carbon units during the life of the remediation system and to use the T014 GC/MS air analysis
method unless screening with the PID showed elevated VOC levels. According to USAGE, the
costs for carbon replacement should be deleted from the contract costs. However, the money
associated with a decrease in air compliance monitoring will be used to increase the amount of
system performance testing performed under the contract. The total revised negotiated cost is
$1,710,303.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
93
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
The revised negotiated costs for the LF4 remediation are broken into cost elements as follows.
Activity /* -?'
Before Treatment Activities (includes site preparation,
mobilization, obtaining permits, project meetings and sampling
to determine compliance with air emissions).
Negotiated Price ($)
766,136
Treatment Activities
Carbon replacement
Monitoring
Operate and maintain system for 33 months
Subtotal to date
Options **
Operate system for 1 additional year
Operate system for 6 months
0*
130,024
814,143
1,710,303
370,451
195,451
Notes:
*Only a portion of the negotiated cost for carbon replacement of $206,954 will be spent to cover the
analysis and disposal of the spent carbon at the end of the site remediation.
"Options were included in negotiations on project costs. At the time of this report, USAGE had not
exercised these options; therefore, they are not included in the total treatment cost to date.
Because this application is ongoing and no estimate of the amount of material treated has been
made, no unit cost has been calculated.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The cleanup of LF4 is being performed in accordance with a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA)
between the Department of the Army, EPA, and the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
and the ROD signed October 15, 1993. Under the FFA, Ft. Lewis, assisted by the USAGE, is
responsible for the LF4 cleanup; EPA and Ecology are the responsible regulatory agencies and
provide oversight as needed. The Remedial Action Contractor was selected by USAGE.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The total cost for the pilot study of the AS/SVE system at LF4 was $241,000.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
94
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfil) 4
Subsequent to original negotiations, the contaminant concentrations in system air emissions were
determined to be below the allowable air emission standards, and PSAPCA agreed to allow
USAGE to; eliminate the need to change the carbon units from the system and to reduce air
compliance monitoring requirements. USAGE is planning to reallocate money from any savings
on air compliance monitoring to increase the system performance air testing. However, several
modifications reduced the project costs. The revised costs for this application are $1,710,303.
Because this application is ongoing, the amount of material treated by the system is not known at
this time. Therefore, unit costs were not calculated at this time.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Pilot Study
The results of the pilot-scale AS/SVE test reduced TCE concentrations in the soil gas at LF4.
During the tests of the pilot system in SVE-only mode, TCE concentrations were reduced from
initial concentrations of 160 ppb to 190 ppb to final concentrations of 125 ppb to 145 ppb during
the 8-hour tests and from 235 ppb to 110 ppb during the 72-hour test. The addition of AS to the
system reduced TCE concentrations in the soil gas from initial concentrations of 120 ppb to 160
ppb to final concentrations of 90 to 110 ppb during the 8-hour tests and from 110 ppb to 56 ppb
during the 72-hour test.
During the pilot-scale tests, AS/SVE reduced TCE concentrations in groundwater. At the three
wells located near suspected hot spots of contamination, TCE concentrations were reduced from
310 ppb to 170 ppb (DOS-1), from 220 ppb to 170 ppb (DOS-2), and from 140 ppb to 23 ppb
(MW8A). However, the levels were above the cleanup goal of 5 ppb for TCE.
VC was not detected in the groundwater samples during the pilot test.
• The results of Mn sampling before and after sparging indicated that Mn levels decreased in six of
the 11 wells samples, but increased in five of the wells.
The following observations were made in the technical memorandum [7] summarizing the results of the
pilot study.
• With respect to optimal air extraction rate, an extraction rate of 110 cfm is likely to capture all
volatilized contaminants within about 200 feet of each extraction well.
• The radius of influence of an air injector well is about 20-30 feet.
A pressure of approximately 8 psi was required to overcome resistance in the injection well.
However, at injection pressures above 8 psi, air bubbles would be more likely to occur. At 8 psi,
the air injection rate into the aquifer was about 45 cfm. The 45 cfm (8 psi pressure) was
determined to be the optimal flow rate, reflecting site and conditions of injections 12 feet below
static water level. The vendor noted that changes in depth of the injection well will affect the
injection pressure and radius of influence.
• The major problem encountered during the pilot test was that the SVE vacuum pump did not
produce a vacuum sufficient to be detected by the automated sensors. Because of schedule
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
95
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
constraints, a larger blower could not be obtained. However, according to the vendor, adequate
data was obtained from the pilot test to design the full-scale system.
While overall TCE concentrations decreased in the groundwater, there were several instances
when TCE concentrations increased during operation. These increases may be attributed to the
new source material (from contaminated soil) infiltrating into the groundwater.
Startup Activities for Full-Scale System
• The startup activities for the full-scale system were conducted in three phases to provide data for
use in optimizing full-scale operations. Phase 1 was designed to collect data on the optimal
extraction flow rates for the SVE wells; Phase 2 focused on optimizing the air flow rates for the AS
system; and Phase 3 included a number of adjustments to the entire system to determine the
optimum system settings for maximum contaminant removal.
• During Phase 1, the first well was tested according to the testing procedures in the LF4 RAMP,
which specified a maximum extraction flow rate of 150 scfm. During testing, a five-fold increase in
TCE mass removal rate was observed in well SVE-1 when the extraction flow rate was increased
from 125 to 150 scfm. Based on these results, the testing procedure was modified to allow wells
to be operated at extraction flow rates up to 600 scfm.
Wells SVE-2 to SVE-6 were operated at the increased extraction flow rates. All five well achieved
their highest TCE mass removal rates and highest TCE concentrations in the vapor stream at 600
scfm. However, only well SVE-6 was tested at more than two extraction rates. These data did
not provide any additional indication of the optimal extraction flow rates for the individual SVE
wells. Therefore, the optimal extraction flow rate was established as a range of between 150 and
600 scfm.
The total system test performed during Phase 1 included operating all six SVE wells at 200 scfm
(1200 scfm for the system) and testing of individual AS wells at varying air flow rates. The
addition of the AS wells to the system had little impact on TCE mass removal rates and
concentrations. Increasing the air flow rates of an AS well from 50 to 75 scfm resulted in
decreased TCE mass removal rates and concentrations for several wells; increasing the air flow
rate to 100 scfm generally did not produce mass removal rates higher than that achieved at 50
scfm. However, during the total system test, there was an overall decrease in TCE mass removal
rates and concentrations from the start of the test to the end point of the test.
• While TCE concentrations in the groundwater or soil gas were not measured during Phase 1, the
results of Phase 2/3 operations (see below) suggest that TCE concentrations at LF4 were
trending downward, and therefore, the effects of the operational changes to the system were
masked.
• During Phases 2 and 3, a number of adjustments were made to the system including varying
injection air flow rates, concentrating extraction in hot spot areas, and concentrating extraction on
pairs of wells. Data collected during the system adjustments did not show distinct differences on
system operation as a results of the adjustments. During this testing, TCE concentrations in the
soil gas were measured and were shown to be decreasing during the period of the testing. In
Chemical Data Report #1, the apparent downward trend in TCE concentrations at LF4 were
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
96
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
reported to have masked the effects of operational changes made to the system. As a result, the
optimal system settings could not be determined during the Phase 2/3 startup activities.
• The results of Phase 2 and 3 activities were used to establish tentative system settings which
included operating SVE wells between 150 and 210 scfm; cycling air sparging wells, and leaving
the passive injection wells closed.
The results of the two rounds of groundwater sampling showed a decrease in TCE concentrations
in most wells between October 1996 and January 1997; however, TCE concentrations remain
above the cleanup goal of 5 ppb.
Full-Scale System Operation
The following observations about the system operation were made in the Chemical Data Report #2.
• The emphasis of vapor data collection in the future should shift to the individual extraction wells
rather than the combined extracted flow. In the fifth quarter of the full-scale operation, quarterly
vapor sampling from the individual wells was initiated.
• Based on the testing of the untreated and the treated condensate removed by the remediation
system, the potential life of the aqueous-phase carbon units was estimated to be in excess often
million gallons.
An SVE system flow rate of less than the design maximum flow rate may be more efficient at TCE
removal than continuous operation at the maximum flow rate. The vendor recommended that the
system be evaluated at moderate SVE system flow rates during the ongoing optimization of the
system.
• The data supports the remedial investigation findings that numerous TCE hot spots exist at the
site, and that the presence of TCE (and/or its degradation products) at one location may or may
not be related to its presence at other locations at the site.
• Studying the natural degradation of the leachate at the site may provide a more widespread
picture of the fate of contamination at the site than focusing on the natural attenuation of
chlorinated hydrocarbons alone.
• Although the impact of the air sparging system on the degradation of TCE at the site had not been
conclusively determined, it was recommended that the air sparging system continued to be
operated until an impact/ benefit analysis for the system is completed.
• Because one of the Contaminant Reduction Monitoring wells upgradient of the remediation
system had maintained an elevated concentration of TCE, a TCE hot spot may be located
upgradient of this location beyond the influence of the remediation system. An additional SVE/air
sparge well pair could be added to this area to increase the reach of the remediation system.
• The concentrations of contaminants downgradient from the treatment system may remain above
the cleanup levels for the site, even if contaminant concentrations are reduced to below cleanup
levels in the treatment system area.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
97
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
1. Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. 1997. Chemical Data Report #1, Landfill 4 Air Sparging/Soil
Vapor Extraction Remediation, Ft. Lewis, Washington. For USAGE Contract No. DACA67-95-G-
0001-28. June 10.
2. Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. 1996. AS/SVE Workplan, Landfill 4 Remediation, Ft. Lewis,
Washington. For USAGE Contract No. DACA67-95-G-0001-28. August 26.
3. USAGE, Seattle District. Undated. Remedial Action Workplan, Ft. Lewis, LF4, AS/SVE Final
Remedial Design.
4. USAGE, Seattle District. Undated. Design Analysis, Ft. Lewis, LF4, AS/SVE Final Remedial
Design.
5. USAGE, Seattle District. Undated. Compliance Monitoring Plan, Ft. Lewis, LF4, AS/SVE Final
Remedial Design.
6. Applied Geotechnology, Inc. 1993. Final Feasibility Study Report, Landfill 4 and Solvent Refined
Coal Pilot Plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington. Prepared for USAGE, Seattle District. May.
7. USAGE, Seattle District. 1995. Technical Memorandum, AS/SVE Pilot LF4, Ft. Lewis. March 28.
8. USAGE, Seattle District. 1994. Final Management Plan, Pilot Study, Landfill 4, Ft. Lewis,
Washington. June.
9. U.S. EPA. 1993. Record of Decision, Ft. Lewis Landfill 4 Remediation. October 15.
10. USAGE, Seattle District. 1994. Government Cost Estimate for Cover Air Sparging/Soil Vapor
Extraction Pilot Test, Landfill 4, Ft. Lewis, WA, Department of the Army. August.
11. USAGE, Seattle District. 1996. Price Negotiation Memorandum. May.
12. K. Lynch, USAGE. 1998. Response to questions on LF4 cost data. January 9.
13. Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. 1998. Chemical Data Report #2, Landfill 4 Remediation, Ft.
Lewis, Washington. For USAGE Contract No. DACA67-95-6-0001-28. March 16.
14. USAGE, Seattle District. 1997. Letter from Ronald M. Bush, P.E. to Margaret Corbin, Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. December 5.
15. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1997. Letter from Margaret L Corbin to Ronald Bush,
USAGE. December 11.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian International
LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 2,1998
98
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table A-1: System Settings and Results During Full-Scale Operation [13]
•• N>8 s
' -1 v»" ^
:,; ,.'.- /* ,-,,;••
- * o * ' v ;- . i
' >V^ ' ^ 1 \ *' ' ' 6-
"-,-' • ,- ' i,\ < * > '*
>)f >"} a tj , \ ,, ! ^ ^ ^ ,, ^ ;
••*•
,'F~ •
«?'
:i .*
*'* *
* o>
!T"
' «
.,»
\
; x» -
|I£fl!
Jfe
O> '
T"
^""
ja ,
«'S*
Is,
2.x
"!S , i
\i\-
1
y«F '
1 *-,
i:'
' 5,->
~-c ^
f-KK
o> x
o> ,
'O
^
'i1* ;
!'•
*: >).
' N-.
%
'•*?,,
« >
-&•;'
,-< ,
ll !
T"!1,
-
O)
t-
• rf- ^
>i\,'
.< •
V*'-
TO !,»•'•
1 T" /
•$^
•I-'',
'SOJ * *
15/1
„<*,-''
il^
Passive Injection Wells
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Extraction Wells
RA-SVE-1 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-2 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-3 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-6 Flow Rate (scfm)
200
220
210
200
230
220
200
230
200
210
220
210
160
230
200
210
220
210
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
180
160
160
160
160
160
180
160
160
160
160
160
180
160
160
160
160
160
180
160
160
160
160
160
180
160
160
160
160
160
180
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Injection Wells
ASW-1 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-2 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-3 Flow Rate (scfrn)
ASW-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
30
30
Closed
Closed
Closed
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
30
Closed
30
Closed
30
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
TCE Concentration
ppbv in System influent
mg/min TCE Removed
210
41
180
31
200
28
200
29
200
28
190
26
200
30
0
0.0
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
99
Draft
October 2,1998
-------
Ft Lewis Landfill 4
Table A-1: System Settings and Results During Full-Scale Operation [13]
N
%
T"
«T
T-
g.
fe
en
T-
eo .
C4
si.
£
o>
T~
a"--
•!••
N.
ro
o>
T--
ttf
e
3
i
C4
T-
§
N
01
0>
T"
o
Ci
c
"»
!•
<0
N
c '-:.
3. -;'_
N
en
o>
T-
rt
3 -
- -"211.
!.&-'•
o»
f*,.
of
4
K
8
- T"
»
;- .*•- .
I--"
r::
"£;
-13 ;-
|';
- «.;". '.
*A
•H -
("•
8
U)
-$ '
<
• h. 'I: . -
1
to
- T-
--;-^
<"?'
Passive Injection Wells
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Extraction Wells
RA-SVE-1 Flow Rate (scfhi)
RA-SVE-2 Flow Rate (scftn)
RA-SVE-3 Flow Rate (scftn)
RA-SVE-4 Flow Rate (scftn)
RA-SVE-5 Flow Rate (scftn)
RA-SVE-6 Flow Rate (scftn)
160
160
170
160
160
160
170
150
160
160
160
160
170
150
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
150
180
170
160
150
160
140
160
160
180
150
170
150
170
160
170
160
160
150
180
160
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
80
90
70
70
70
70
120
130
110
90
90
120
130
120
110
90
90
120
130
130
130
120
120
140
160
150
250
270
180
140
Injection Wells
ASW-1 Flow Rate (scftn)
ASW-2 Flow Rate (scftn)
ASW-3 Flow Rate (scfrn)
ASW-4 Flow Rate (scftn)
ASW-5 Flow Rate (scftn)
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
40
Closed
35
Closed
35
25
Closed
30
Closed
45
Closed
30
35
40
Closed
Closed
35
35
35
Closed
20
Closed
30
Closed
25
25
Closed
25
Closed
35
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
35
35
35
35
30
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
TCE Concentration
ppbv in System influent
mg/min TCE Removed
200
26.9
190
26.7
200
26.9
31.0
230
32.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
140
9.5
30.7
350
25.4
39.2
59.2
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
100
Draft
October 2,1998
-------
Ft. Lewis Landfill 4
Table A-1: System Settings and Results During Full-Scale Operation [13]
K !
,s J> f ->*• '
• - x '' V \y< Ts
' x . 1 *#( ] :
lVM:<'i
;'il
TL
o , -
'« ,l
•I;:'
*••'
»'Ti
*•;
' co '"
^
fl» «»•
x*!
O. .
'*!» ?'
t'tk'r'
fe
OK .'
XOC? ^
»T* '
&
~o> -
:(i-
4 a )
?$J*
r
•U '|X
'' <»
4*» ,
vs,4*" ..
C*t> J
:$t't
• i.-
* ^J *
F O ,.' '
riv
V
-*
^\l_ 3
Passive Injection Wells
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Extraction Wells
RA-SVE-1 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-2 Flow Rate (scfrn)
RA-SVE-3 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
RA-SVE-6 Flow Rate (scfm)
160
140
260
250
160
140
140
150
150
150
150
140
140
150
160
160
160
150
150
150
160
160
150
150
250
270
270
250
Closed
Closed
160
160
150
150
Closed
Closed
250
240
250
220
Closed
Closed
240
230
240
230
Closed
Closed
160
160
270
270
170
160
150
150
270
270
160
160
150
150
270
270
160
150
Injection Wells
ASW-1 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-2 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-3 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-4 Flow Rate (scfm)
ASW-5 Flow Rate (scfm)
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
30
30
30
35
30
35
30
30
35
30
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
25
Closed
Closed
30
35
35
Closed
Closed
30
35
35
Closed
Closed
30
35
35
Closed
Closed
30
35
35
Closed
Closed
30
35
TCE Concentration
ppbv in System influent
mg/min TCE Removed
380
59.2
530
68.9
60.3
480
61.7
97.8
640
58.1
76.2
560
72.0
61.0
360
61.0
61.5
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
101
Draft
October 2,1998
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
102
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
Fort Richardson Building 908 South,
Anchorage, Alaska
103
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
Fort Richardson Building 908 South,
Anchorage, Alaska
Site Name:
Fort Richardson Building 908
South
Location:
Anchorage, Alaska
Contaminants:
Volatile - nonhalogenated: BTEX;
volatile - halogenated:
chlorobenzenes; and Petroleum
Hydrocarbons: GRO and DRO.
Maximum contaminant
concentrations were DRO (17,000
mg/kg), total BTEX (2.28 mg/kg),
and total chlorobenzenes (11.93
mg/kg).
Period of Operation:
Status: Ongoing
Report covers: 2/95 through 3/96
(closure planned for Spring of
1999)
Cleanup Type:
Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial
Action; voluntary cleanup
Vendors:
Linder Construction
8220 Petersburg Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
(907) 349-6222
AGRA Earth & Environmental
711 H Street, Suite 450
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-6480
USAGE Contact:
Deirdre M. Ginter
USAGE - Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
(907) 753-2805
Technology:
Soil vapor extraction
- Two SVE wells screened from 7
to 50 ft bgs were installed to a
total depth of 55 ft bgs.
- Soil gas extracted by a rotary
blower was discharged to the
ambient air after passing through
a knockout drum and a
particulate filter.
- The system was operated at an
air flow rate of 205-220 scfm,
with a vacuum at the wells of 2-
7.5 inches water.
Cleanup Authority:
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation UST
Regulations (18 AAC 78)
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source:
Leaking underground storage tank
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of SVE to treat
gravelly-soil contaminated with
diesel fuel.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Estimated as 4,600 yd3
- Primarily consisted of gravel with either sand or clay.
- Geology consists of surface deposits of glacial till, outwash, and silt.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- ADEC Matrix Level B cleanup levels were identified for this application. These levels are as follows: DRO
(200 mg/kg), GRO (100 mg/kg), Benzene (0.5 mg/kg), Total BTEX (15 mg/kg).
- No performance objectives were established for air emissions from the blower for the application.
104
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at
Fort Richardson Building 908 South,
Anchorage, Alaska (continued)
Results:
- In a soil boring collected in March 1996 (after approximately one year of operation), the concentrations of
DRO, GRO, benzene, and total BTEX were lower than their respective cleanup goals at all depths sampled.
- Analytical data from March 1995 to February 1996 indicate that DRO emissions from the blower were reduced
by approximately 90 percent, and that GRO emissions were reduced by approximately 95 percent, over that
time period.
- The system is planned for shutdown in the Spring of 1999, after evaluation of analytical results from
confirmation samples.
Cost:
- The award cost for this application was $305,053, with $252,200 being directly attributed to construction and
operation of the treatment system. This corresponds to $55 per yd3 of soil treated.
- Since the application has not yet been completed, information about actual costs were not available, and it was
not known how the actual costs will compare with the award costs.
Description:
Ft. Richardson, constructed in 1950, is located adjacent to Elmendorf Air Force Base and is eight miles from
Anchorage, Alaska. Four USTs were removed in 1989 and 1990. One of these tanks, a 1,000-gallon fuel oil
tank removed in September 1989 from an area adjacent to Building 908 South, was found to be leaking.
Contaminated soil was excavated to 26 ft bgs, but remained at the bottom of the excavation. ADEC allowed the
backfilling of the excavation with the understanding that the contamination would be remediated at a later date.
In the initial remedy selection process, low-impact bioventing was selected over aggressive bioventing and
natural attenuation with or without the installation of a protective cap. However, SVE was eventually selected
for implementation at Ft. Richardson because it did not require the nutrient addition or monitoring of biological
activity parameters that would have been needed for bioventing. The SVE system was installed in February
1995.
An interim soil boring was drilled between the two SVE wells in March 1996, and samples from the boring
showed that cleanup goals were being met in that area. The system was operating as of July 1998 and is
currently slated for shutdown in the Spring of 1999 if additional sampling confirms that cleanup goals have been
met throughout the area.
105
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Fort Richardson, Building 908 South
(Ft. Richardson)
Anchorage, Alaska
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial Action (IDTRA)
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION 17. 81
Period of Operation: February 1995 - ongoing (closure planned for
Spring of 1999)
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: Estimated as
4,600 cubic yards of soil
BACKGROUND
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Leaking underground storage tank
Site Background (4,5):
Ft. Richardson, constructed in 1950, is located adjacent to Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) and
is eight miles from Anchorage, Alaska.
At Ft. Richardson, four underground storage tanks (UST) were removed in 1989 and 1990.
Those tanks included a 1,000-gallon unregulated heating oil tank (Tank No. 82) that was
removed in September 1989 from an area adjacent to Building 908 South. Building 908 is
referred to as the 1117th Signal Battalion Stockroom and is in an industrial area at Ft.
Richardson. A railroad spur runs next to the building.
• Excavation of soil was to proceed until the site was free of contamination; however, no clean
reading was obtained after the affected soil had been removed. The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) allowed backfilling of the site, with the understanding that
the Ft. Richardson Directorate of Public Works (DPW) would remediate the site at a later time.
• The excavation at Building 908 South was completed to a depth of 26 feet and was backfilled
with clean soil.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
106
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
• At the time the excavation was performed, soil contaminated with petroleum products, primarily
diesel range drganics (DRO), were identified under the excavation; those soils were identified for
remediation at a later date.
At a meeting on June 13, 1990 attended by ADEC, DPW, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) Alaska District, the representatives of ADEC recommended that further site
characterization be conducted before proceeding with remediation activities. In August and
September 1990, USAGE performed the additional characterization activities, including
collection of soil borings.
This report is limited to a discussion of activities at Building 908 South at Ft. Richardson.
Remedy Selection (4,7):
Several remedies were considered for treating the petroleum-contaminated soil at Ft.
Richardson, including low-impact bioventing, aggressive bioventing, natural attenuation with
installation1 of a protective cap, and natural attenuation (natural attenuation was identified as the
"baseline" alternative). Low-impact bioventing was selected for this application. The factors that
supported the decision to use low-impact bioventing included project cost, duration of treatment,
anticipated capability to meet cleanup goals, monitoring requirements, and management factors
(such as the use of interagency agreements and considerations related to public acceptability).
In the selection process, low-impact bioventing scored the highest of the four options, with a final
score of 1.2. Natural attenuation scored 0, natural attenuation with a protective cap scored 0.78,
and aggressive bioventing scored 0.88. The relatively high score for low-impact bioventing was
in part a result of the relatively high score for management assigned to that option.
Although low-impact bioventing was initially selected for this application, SVE was the remedy
used. The SVE system did not require the nutrient injection or monitoring of biological activity
parameters that would have been needed for bioventing.
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
Deirdre M. Ginter*
USACE-Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Telephone: (907) 753-2805
*primary contact for this application
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
107
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Remediation Contractors (5,6):
Under Construction served as prime contractor to USAGE for this application and was responsible for
installation of the treatment system and for mechanical operations of the monitoring system. AGRA
Earth & Environmental (AEE), a subcontractor to Under, was responsible for the monitoring of system
effectiveness and for preparation of a conceptual design report and an interim remedial action report.
Linda Henrickson
Under Construction
8220 Petersburg Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-6222
AGRA Earth & Environmental
711 H Street, Suite 450
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6480
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (in situ)
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Semivolatiles (Nonhalogenated): DROs
Volatiles (Nonhalogenated):
Volatiles (Halogenated):
Gasoline range organics (GRO), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX)
Chlorobenzenes
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
• The terms DRO and GRO are indicator parameters that refer to a range of hydrocarbons and
are defined by ADEC as follows:
DRO - hydrocarbons in the range of C10 - C28
- GRO - hydrocarbons in the range of C 6 - C10
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
108
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Provided below are the properties of BTEX and chlorobenzene.
:- f • Property ; '••<•£•'
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight ;
Specific Gravity (at 20° C)
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg at 70° F)
Boiling Point (°C at 760 mmHg)
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient (K™)
* \ 51"? *7
Benzene
C6H6
78.11
0.88
79.4
80.1
132
x '
, Toluene ' ,"
C8H5Cn3
92.14
0.87
23.2
110.6
537
' Vfthyl-
s benzene
C6HSC2H5
106.17
0.87
10.4
136.2
1,100
~fj Xylenes
C6H4((CH3)2
106.17
0.86 - 0.88
5.2-9
138.3-144.4
1,830
*Chlor6;t,
^_' benzene^.
C6H5CI
112.5
1.105
10.1
131.6
692
Figure 1. Location of Soil Borings and Extraction Wells (6)
Approximate
extent of soil
impacts after
excavatbn
®Soil vapor extractbn well
OSoil boring bcatbn
•Confirmatbn boring
Not to Scale
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
109
July 29,1998
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS (41
In September 1989, at the time of the excavation, five soil borings were completed in the vicinity
of Building 908 South. Figure 1 shows the locations of these borings. Soil samples were
collected from the borings at depths ranging from 5 to more than 50 feet below ground surface
(bgs) and analyzed for kerosene K-1, diesel fuel #2, jet fuel A, bunker fuel #6D, BTEX, and
chlorobenzenes. Table SB-1 shows results of analysis of the soil samples. (Kerosene, diesel
fuel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel include constituents identified as DROs.)
As Table SB-1 shows, concentrations of diesel fuel #2 as high as 17,000 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) were detected (Bore Hole AP-2989; sample depth 5 to 6.5 feet). F:ive soil samples
contained diesel fuel #2 concentrations higher than 200 mg/kg. In addition, Table SB-1 shows
concentrations of kerosene as high as 18 mg/kg, concentrations of jet fuel as high as 1,200
mg/kg, and concentrations of bunker fuel as high as 94 mg/kg.
Table SB-1 also shows concentrations of benzene detected as high as 0.11 mg/kg, toluene as
high as 7.1 mg/kg, chlorobenzene as high as 6.7 mg/kg, m-dichlorobenzene as high as 11.0
mg/kg, and o-, p-dichlorobenzene as high as 91.0 mg/kg.
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE. T41
Listed below are the major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this technology and
the values measured for each parameter.
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Contaminant Sorption
Lower Explosive Limit
Presence of Inclusions
Humic Content
»' 5??: ;<::::/ KValue4^ "K' "^:^'V*>V
'-•--. ••-• ; l.fyt?f'-,: •*•&£ **".•-•/-:- '^ •'•'•" '•'• < 's-
See Table ST-1
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Not identified
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
110
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Table SB-1. Results of Analysis of Soil Borinqs Collected in September 1989* (4)
Bore Hole NuMer
Sample ID
(90FRUST-)
Sample Depth (ft)
%AP-2P|fr
123
20-21.5
AF-2"988|.
126
35-36.5
•|AP-2988.''
127
40-41.5
130
45-46.5
AP^|8|
131
>50
|4P:2989l
132
5-6.5
|Af^989,l
133SLQC
5-6.5
,pf|298:||i
133SL QA
5-6.5
137
25-26.5
||&Rr2989'*:
1 *iim V%. ' '*' "
138
30-30.5
139
35-36.5
1 |S:P-299Q;,
ii^nM $$£• ^ili
143
5-6.5
'AlNf&'Oj
144SL QC
5-6.5
145SLQA
5-6.5
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 801 5M) (mg/kg) ;
Kerosene K-1
Diesel fuel #2
Jet Fuel A
Bunker Fuel #6D
<2.4
17
<2.4
<12
<180
<180
1200
<920
<19
<19
460
94
18
1900"
<18
<92
<1.9
160**
<1.9
<97
<89
5300**
<89
<450
NR
8300
NR
NR
NR
17000
NR
NR
<190
1800**
<190
<930
<18
370"
<18
<91
<18
43"
<18
<91
<1.8
<1.8
74**
<8.9
NR
NR
56
NR
NR
310
NR
NR
Volatile Organics (EPA Method 8020) (mg/kg) ,
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene
o-, p-Xylene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-, p-Dichlor-
obenzene
<0.14
<0.14
<0.14
<0.14
0.38
<0.14
0.85
<0.28
<0.54
<0.54
1.4
<0.54
4.3
<0.54
8.4
11.0
<0.56
4.1
6.7
<0.56
10.0
<2.5
5.9
8.8
<0.05
<0.05
0.22
<0.05
0.72
<0.05
0.49
3.0
<0.47
2.1
1.1
<0.57
1.8
1.3
1.3
6.7
<0.63
2.1
2.7
0.75
11.0
18.0
11.0
51.0
NR
7.1
6.5
2.4
70.0
NR
2.4
91.0
NR
0.016
NR
0.23
0.215
NR
NR
NR
0.11
0.39
0.529
0.12
1.4
0.26
2.1
9.3
<0.05
<0.05
0.045
<0.05
0.1
0.054
0.21
1.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.046
0.013
0.12
0.48
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.02
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.012
NR
0.008
0.06
0.015
NR
NR
NR =
Results are summarized here only for those samples in which at least one contaminant was detected at a concentration of 1 mg/kg or higher. Additional analytical data on soil borings are provided
in reference 4.
Laboratory estimate
Not Reported
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
111
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
During installation of soil borings in 1989, soil types were identified according to the Unified Soil
Classification System. The soil types were identified for depths ranging from 5 to 50 feet bgs
and are shown in Table ST-1. (4)
Table ST-1. Soil Types Identified for 1989 Soil Borings, According to the Unified Soil
Classification System (4)
Depth (ft bgs)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Soil Boring No. ;s s , ; '^
AP-2988
SP
SP
GP
SP
-
GW-GC
GW-GC
GW
GW-GC
GP-GC
AP-2989
-
GW
-
GP-GC
GW-GC
GW
GP
GP-GC
GW
GW-GC
AP-299% ,
GW
GW-GC
GW
GP-GC
GW
GW
GP-GC
GW-GC
-
-
Ap^m ,
-
-
-
GP-GC
GP-GC
GP-GC
-
-
-
-
'£ AP-2992 v
GW-GM
GW-GC
GW-GC
GP-GC
-
GW-GC
GW-GC
GP
-
-
SP 3 Poorly graded sand with gravel and cobbles
GP = Poorly graded gravel with sand
GW = Well-graded gravel with sand
GP-GC = Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand
GW-GC = Well-graded gravel with clay and sand
GW-GM = Well-graded gravel with silt, sand, and cobbles
GEOLOGY (41:
• Ft. Richardson occupies lowlands to the west of the Chugach Mountains. The lowlands consist
of surface deposits of glacial till, outwash, and silt. The Elmendorf Moraine transects the
installation in a northeast-southwest direction and consists of glacial deposits of unconsolidated
till composed of poorly sorted boulders, gravel, sand, and silt.
• A thin mantle of fine-grained soil, generally about two to five feet in thickness, blankets the area.
Relatively clean, coarse-grained soils derived from outwash and glacial debris underlie the
surface fines and extend to depths ranging approximately from 10 to 50 feet.
• Groundwater under Ft. Richardson occurs primarily as a result of percolation from surface water.
At Building 908, the groundwater is present at depths greater than 50 ft bgs .
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
112
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPE |71
SVE
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPE
None
TIMELINE (4. 5.6. 8)
-;' s \ ~. ~;/"Date ,_ -~ ,y -
September 1989
August - September 1990
November 17, 1994
February 20, 1995
March 1996
May 1996
Spring 1999
J'" -• ,/-'•" .*Vc\> :*'•' Activity '••'- -*"' , '_ •'"'%
1,000-gallon unregulated heating oil (Tank No. 82) was removed from an
adjacent to Building 908 South; with five soil borings collected during
excavation
Additional site characten'zation activities were conducted at Building 908
area
South
Construction began for SVE system
SVE treatment system began operation
Interim soil boring collected
Interim remedial action report was prepared
Closure activities planned
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
113
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Figure 2. Process Schematic for Aboveground Equipment (6)
Exhaust
0-100 in. HjO
Vacuum Gauge
• Vacuum Relief Valve
OUT IN
Rotary
Blower
OUT IN
Knockout
Drum
Building Floor
4' PVC Fbw
Control Valve
System Design and Construction (5, 6)
The SVE system designed for Ft. Richardson consisted of two SVE wells (SVE-1 and SVE-2)
and aboveground equipment that included a knockout drum, a particulate filter, and a rotary
blower. Figure 1 shows the locations of the two extraction wells and shelter for the aboveground
equipment. Figure 2 presents a process schematic for the aboveground equipment.
The SVE wells were installed to a depth of 55 ft bgs, and were screened in the interval from 7 to
50 ft bgs. To accommodate the low temperatures expected for the application, heat trace
(5 watts per ft) was installed in each well to a depth of 8 ft bgs. The references available provide
no information about temperatures expected for the application.
The wells were piped individually to the equipment shelter through horizontal trenches installed
30 inches bgs. Heat-traced, insulated arctic pipe was used in the trenches.
The rotary blower used in the application was a EG&G Rotron EN-707 regenerative blower, a
three-phase, five-horsepower blower with a maximum suction of 85 standard cubic feet per
minute (scfm) at 87 inches of water.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
114
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Operation (5,6, 8)
• The SVE system began operation on February 20,1995 and is expected to operate through
Spring 1999, when closure sampling will be conducted.
• The following system parameters were monitored during the application: extraction air flow rate,
vacuum at wells SVE-1 and SVE-2, vacuum from each extraction line in the equipment shelter,
change in pressure from inlet to outlet side of the filter (filter differential), change in pressure
from inlet to outlet side of the blower (blower differential), total organic vapor concentration
(measured with a photoionization detector (PID) from each extraction line in the equipment
shelter, and total organic vapor concentration in the exhaust stack from the rotary blower. Table
TSO-1 shows the results of monitoring of system parameters as of February 15,1996.
• As Table TSO-1 shows, vacuums from wells SVE-1 and -2 measured at the shelter were as high
as 37 inches water (Well SVE-1, January 16,1996), and were generally higher than vacuums
measured at the wells. Air flow rates and filter and blower differentials were relatively constant
over the course of the monitoring period, while concentrations of volatile organic compounds
decreased both at the shelter and in the blower exhaust.
• The references available provide no information about the percentage of time that the system
was on line during the period from February 1995 to March 1996.
Initial Activities (5)
The remediation contractor performed the following activities for the application:
• Soil collected during installation of the extraction wells was used as source material for a nutrient
and bacteriological evaluation and in a laboratory-scale test to determine optimal nutrient and
thermal parameters for operation of the system.
• The need for passive or active air injection and the need for thermal enhancement (direct steam
injection, steam recirculation, hot water recirculation, and buried electrical element (heat trace)
heating systems) were evaluated.
• An assessment was made of the initial soil respiration rate and the soil permeability. For the
respiration test, a very-low-volume air extraction blower was used to obtain representative
samples of soil gas for analysis of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and extracted contaminants. For the
permeability test, a higher-volume blower was used.
The references available provide no information about the results of the initial nutrient, bacteriological,
air injection, thermal enhancement, soil respirometry, and soil permeability evaluations.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
115
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Table TSO-1. System Monitoring Results (6)
Date
2/20/95
3/1/95
4/18/95
5/16/95
7/27/95
8/21/95
10/19/95
11/14/95
12/14/95
1/16/96
2/15/96
Extraction
Air Flow Rate
(scfm)
210
205
205
205
210
210
215
220
210
205
205
Vacuum
at Well
SVE-1
(inches
water)
6.6
6.4
NT
6.0
NT
NT
6.0
NT
5.0
NT
7.5
Vacuum
at Well
SVE-2
(inches
water)
3.2
3.6
NT
3.2
NT
NT
4.5
NT
3.3
NT
2
Vacuum at
Shelter
from Well
SVE-1
(inches
water)
NR
8.7
9.0
34.0
7.5
10.0
7.5
7.6
8.0
37
12
Vacuum at
Shelter
from Well
SVE-2
(inches
water)
NR
8.7
9.0
34.0
7.5
33.0
7.5
7.6
6.4
*
12
Filter
Differ-
ential
(inches
water)
22
22
23
24
23
23
23
23
23
*
22
Blower
Differ-
ential
(inches
water)
33
34
34
34
33
33
33
32
33
34
34
Total Organic
Vapor Cone, at
Shelter from
SVE-1 (ppm)
10
2
NT
3
3
2
1
NT
2
0.7
0.5
Total Organic
Vapor Cone, at
Shelter from
SVE-2 (ppm)
100
39
NT
NT
9
12
2
NT
1
*
*
Total Organic
Vapor Cone, at
Exhaust
Stack/Blower
(ppm)
29
20
1
4
4
10
1
1
4
1.8
0
NR = Not reported
NT = Not taken
* = Water present in line
Prepared by:
U.S. Armu Corns of Ennineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
116
Int.. *>Q 4OQQ
WMIJT OtW) IVWW
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
Closure and Site Restoration (1,8)
• Closure and site restoration activities will be conducted after operation of the system has been
completed (projected Spring 1999) and will include additional soil sampling.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
Listed below are the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and
the values measured for each parameter.
' ,/' Parameter ' , ~ ' "."
Air Flow Rate •
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
Operating Time
Temperature
~ '-' Value s* •>
205-220scfm
2 - 7.5 inches water vacuum (at wells)
Information not available
Information not available
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (4)
ADEC Matrix Level B cleanup levels were identified for the application. Table CL-1 shows those
levels.
Table CL-1. Cleanup Levels for Soil at Ft. Richardson Building 908 South (4)
'%'..'' •' •: 5-ii''plp^™'nfWt^- '"*:'.. i-£'';^.%';- ""
DRO !
GRO f
Benzene
Total BTEX
•;'v 3'l :r'\J\ '•& CJeanup Level (mg/kg) '-' ' ,~ ?*?, !,>"••
200
100
0.5
15
Confirmation that cleanup levels have been met will be performed during close-out sampling.
No performance objectives were established for air emissi'ons from the blower for the
application.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
117
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA f61
• In March 1996, a soil boring, located within the area of contamination (Figure 1), was collected
and analyzed for DRO by method AK 102, GRO by method AK 101, and benzene and total
BTEX by method 8020. From March 1995 through February 1996, six samples from the exhaust
stack from the blower were collected and analyzed for DRO by EPA Method 5030/8100 and
GRO by EPA method 5030/8015. The results of analysis of the exhaust stack samples and soil
boring are shown in Tables TPD-1 and TPD-2, respectively.
• In addition, samples were collected from the soil excavated during installation of wells SVE-1
and SVE-2. The samples were collected at depths of 25, 45, and 55 ft bgs and analyzed for
DRO, GRO, benzene, and total BTEX. According to the remediation contractor, analysis of all
samples showed that concentrations of those parameters were lower than their respective
cleanup levels, with the exception of a soil sample taken from SVE-2 at 40 ft bgs, which showed
DRO at 250 mg/kg. However, the results of those analyses were not included in the available
references.
• According to USAGE, the concentrations in the soil boring collected in March 1996 were
assumed to represent the average concentrations of contaminants in the treated soil.
Table TPD-1. Results of Analysis of Sample from Blower Exhaust Stack (6)
Date
3/1/95
4/18/95
5/16/95
7/27/95
10/19/95
2/15/96
DRO(lbs/day)
1.10
0.16
0.50
0.34
0.34
0.10
;GRO (Ibs/day)
0.52
0.00
0.21
0.10
0.09
0.02
Table TPD-2. Results of Analysis of Soil Boring Collected March 1996 (6)
Depth (ft bgs)
Cleanup Level
25
30
30 (duplicate
sample)
35
40
45
50
DRO (mg/kg)
200
53
10
7
ND
ND
15
10
GRO (mg/kg)
100
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Benzene (mg/kg)
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total BTEX ,
(mg/kg)
15
0.199
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
118
July 29,1998
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT
The analytical data presented in Table TPD-2 show that, as of March 1996, the concentrations
of DRO, GRO, benzene, and total BTEX in the soil boring were lower than their respective
cleanup goals at all soil depths sampled (25 to 50 ft bgs). The highest concentrations were
found at 25 ft bgs, where DRO was measured at 53 mg/kg, GRO at 20 trig/kg, and total BTEX at
0.199 mg/kg.
The analytical data shown in Table TPD-1 indicate that emissions of DRO from the blower were
reduced by approximately 90 percent over a one-year operating period (from March 1995 to
February 1996) and that emissions of GRO were reduced by approximately 95 percent over the
same period.
Material Balance: Only a limited amount of analytical data were available for the application (for
example, no data were available on quantity of contaminants in the soil before treatment or on the
cumulative mass of contaminant removed); therefore no material balance was performed for this
application.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (6)
Available information related to the quality of treatment performance data includes names of
analytical laboratories, analytical methods used, and results of quality control analyses.
• Samples of blower exhaust air were analyzed by Commercial Testing & Engineering Co.
(CT&E). CT&E analyzed DRO by EPA Method 5030/8100 and GRO by EPA Method 5030/8015.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 1501 was used to extract
the samples.
The soil boring samples were collected by a split-spoon sampler and analyzed by Superior
Analytical Laboratory (Superior). Superior analyzed DRO by Method AK101, GRO by Method
AK102, and BTEX by Method 8020.
The remediation contractor noted no exceptions to quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures or protocols for the application. QA/QC procedures included use of
duplicate soil samples, method blanks, equipment blanks, and trip blanks.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS (2. 7)
The references available provide only limited information about the procurement process.
In September 1994, USAGE prepared a detailed government estimate of costs for the
application, using the MCASES Gold Edition software, release 5.30. The estimate was based
on use of the hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) work breakdown structure (WBS)
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
119
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
for in situ biodegradation and bioreclamation. The government estimated that performance of
the application would cost $354,608, a total consisting of $61,376 for preparation and submittal
of the work plan, $220,943 for site work and the bioventing system, and $72,289 for site work
and installation and operation of the nutrient addition system.
• The project was conducted as a delivery order under an IDTRA contract. USAGE solicited
proposals for the contract, and a prime contractor was selected on the basis of technical
qualifications to perform a variety of remedial actions that might be necessary for the application.
Prime contractors were required to prepare cost estimates when they were issued a delivery
order; for work that was to be performed by a subcontractor, the prime contractor was required
to obtain at least three bids from prospective subcontractors.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST Ml
• Cost information was provided for award cost only:
The award cost for this application was $305,053, approximately 86 percent of the cost
estimated by the government. The $305,053 consisted of approximately $52,800 for
before-treatment activities (such as preparation and submittal of a work plan; completion
of a biotreatability test; performance of in situ respirometry, air permeability, and
groundwater sparging tests; system design; and site investigation); $190,000 for
construction and operation of a bioventing system, and $62,200 for construction and
operation of a nutrient addition system. (The costs of the bioventing and nutrient
addition systems are assumed to be equal to the costs of an SVE system). The latter
two costs (a total of $252,200) are the costs of activities directly attributed to treatment.
The $252,200 total for SVE was divided into costs for construction and operation.
Construction costs were estimated at $116,900, with operation costs estimated at
$135,300.
• The application at Ft. Richardson has not yet been completed; information about actual costs
therefore was not available. It is not yet known how the actual costs will compare with award
costs.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
This application was a voluntary cleanup action that involved treatment of petroleum-
contaminated soil near an unregulated heating oil tank. According to the contractor, the cleanup
was conducted under the guidelines set forth in the ADEC Underground Storage Tank
Regulations (18 AAC 78). The treated soil was required to meet ADEC Matrix Level B cleanup
levels. (6, 7)
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
120
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The award cost for SVE at Ft. Richardson Building 908 South was $252,200 for activities directly
attributed to treatment, representing a unit cost of $55 per cubic yard of soil treated (4,600 cubic
yards treated). The available references contain insufficient information to calculate a unit cost
per pound of contaminant extracted.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The soil boring collected in March 1996 showed that after one year of operation all contaminants
were measured at concentrations less than their respective cleanup levels (DRO - 200 mg/kg,
GRO -100 mg/kg, benzene 0.5 mg/kg, and total BTEX - 15 mg/kg).
• Data on the concentrations of the target contaminants in soil before cleanup operation began is
limited; therefore, the percent reduction of these contaminants during treatment cannot be
calculated. However, data collected during the 1989 site investigations showed concentrations
of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil as high as 17,000 mg/kg for diesel fuel #2 and 1,200
mg/kg for kerosene. In addition, VOCs were detected as high as 91 mg/kg for o-, p-
dichlorobenzene and 70 mg/kg for m-xylene.
According to a representative of USAGE, the reductions in concentrations of contaminants at the
site were greater than expected for a site contaminated with diesel fuel in gravelly soil mixed
with clay. (7)
• The mass of DRO and GRO in the exhaust stack of the extraction system was reduced by
greater than 90 percent during the period from March 1995 to February 1996.
The system will be shut down if closure sampling planned for Spring 1999 confirms that
contaminants in the entire area have been reduced to below cleanup levels. (8)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The remediation contractor provided the following additional observations and lessons learned:
By February 1996, the bioventing system was approaching an asymptotic level of performance.
The lateral extent of contamination could not be estimated accurately from the data available.
The contractor recommended that three additional soil borings be installed and that each of the
borings be sampled at five-foot intervals from 25 to 50 ft bgs and the samples analyzed for DRO,
GRO, and BTEX. The references available do not indicate whether the borings were installed.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
121
-------
Fort Richardson Building 908 South
1. USAGE HTRW-CE. 1996. Cost Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies. November.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Project FTR036: Bioventing POL. Soil Bldg 908 S - Fort
Richardson, Alaska, Revised Government Estimate. September 12.
3. Miscellaneous Contractual Documentation, DACA85-94-C-0000, July 1994.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 1994. Underground Storage Tank Remediation,
Four Sites at Fort Richardson, Alaska; Site Assessment/Release Investigation Report and
Corrective Action Report. Revised February 14.
5. AGRA Earth & Environmental. 1994. Fort Richardson Building 908 South Bioventing System
Conceptual Design, Contract No. DACA 85-94-D-0014, Delivery Order #0003. October.
6. AGRA Earth & Environmental. 1996. Interim Remedial Action Report for Bioventing System at
Building 908 South, Fort Richardson, Alaska. May.
7. B. Gagnon, USAGE -Alaska District. 1997: Comments and Responses on Pre-draft Report.
December 2.
8. Berman, Michael H. 1998. Record of Telephone Conversation with Bernard Gagnon. June 19.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian
International LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
122
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
123
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Site Name:
Sites 2 and 5 - Petroleum Oils
and Lubricants Area
Contaminants:
Volatiles (nonhalogenated)
• BTEXandTPH
• Maximum concentrations - Benzene (48,000 ug/kg), Toluene
(210,000 ug/kg), Xylene (500,000 ug/kg), Ethylbenzene (180,000
ug/kg) and TPH (17,500 mg/kg)
Location:
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Project Management:
U.S. Air Force
Drew Lessard
Restoration Program Manager
49 CES/CEVR
550 Tabosa Avenue
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
88330
(505)475-5395
Technology:
In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
• Network of 22 extraction wells
(varying combinations are
used)
• 2 Horsepower SVE blower
motor
• Knockout tank to separate
vapor and liquid phases.
Cleanup Type:
Remedial Action
Vendor:
IT Corporation (Construction)
Foster Wheeler (Current O&M)
Ronald Versaw, P.E.
Delivery Order Manager
143 Union Boulevard
Suite 1010
Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1824
SIC Code:
9711 (National Security)
Period of Operation:
• April 1995 to present
• Treatment system currently in
operation
Cleanup Authority:
State and EPA
Waste Sources:
Chronic and acute surface
releases of JP-4 jet fuel, AVGAS
and diesel fuel from aboveground
storage tanks
Type/Quantity of Media
Treated:
Soil
• Estimated 9,500 cubic yards of
soil (in-situ)
• Estimated 44,000 pounds of
TPH removed from the soil
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Cornelius Amindyas
NMED
2044 Galisteo
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
(505) 827-1561
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Treatment system has operated
successfully with minimal
downtime or maintenance
requirements
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
NMED has set the following soil cleanup criteria for POL sites at
Holloman AFB:
• 1000 mg/kg TPH
• 25 mg/kg Benzene
• Removal of all floating free-phase hydrocarbons
124
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Sites 2 and 5
Holloman AFB, New Mexico (continued)
Costs:
The total cost for this project (through August 1997)
was $610,000. This translates to a cost of $64 per
cubic yard of soil treated.
Results:
Confirmatory soil samples collected hi 1997
indicate that soil TPH concentrations have been
reduced below the regulatory guideline of 1,000
mg/kg. Previous sampling has indicated that
benzene concentrations are below 25 mg/kg.
Floating free-phase hydrocarbons have never been
observed in the subsurface at the site.
Description:
During the 1960s and 1970s, several releases of JP-4 jet fuel, AVGAS and diesel fuel occurred in a POL
storage area at Holloman AFB. Releases included chronic leaks and a 30,000-gallon spill that occurred in
1978. The site previously contained 14 aboveground POL storage tanks. All 14 tanks were removed from
the site in 1987.!
The site of the releases was investigated as part of the IRP program and two sites (Sites 2 and 5) were
identified in the vicinity of the POL storage area. Because the two sites were similar in nature and in close
proximity to each other, they were ultimately combined into one site (Site 2/5). Subsequent investigations
at Site 2/5 identified an area requiring soil remediation. This area was selected based on soil cleanup
criteria developed for POL sites at Holloman AFB. This area is 80 feet wide by 200 feet long. Soil borings
indicated that soil contamination extended 16 below the ground surface at the site. It was determined that
groundwater remediation was not required based on the quality of the groundwater and the lack of floating
free-phase hydrocarbons at the site.
In 1994 and 1995, an SVE system was constructed at the site. The system includes 22 extraction wells, a 2-
horsepower blower and a knockout tank to separate vapor and liquid phases in the extraction stream. The
system was started in April 1995 and is currently still hi operation (as of October 1998). It is estimated that
44,000 pounds of TPH have been removed from the soil at the site. Since 1995, several different extraction
well configurations have been used. For a period in 1997, all 22 wells were in use simultaneously.
On several occasions since system start up, soil borings have performed at the site to determine if cleanup
goals have been met at the site. The most recent sampling event (October 1997) indicated that the goals had
been met. In March 1998, a Final Characterization Study was submitted to NMED for review. This study
recommended that no further remedial action be conducted at Site 2/5. Approval of this recommendation
was pending at the tune of this report.
i
In addition to meeting soil cleanup criteria at Site 2/5, the SVE system has consistently operated below
limits set by NMED for allowable air emissions of organic compounds.
125
-------
Holloman AFB
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Sites 2 and 5 (Site 2/5)
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Remedial
Figure 1 shows the location of Holloman AFB in New Mexico.
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION (1.21
Period of Operation: Full-scale operation - April 1995 through October 1998 (currently in operation)
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 9,500 cubic yards of soil (contaminated zone is
estimated to be 80 feet wide by 200 feet long by 16 feet deep). Soil treatment at Site 2/5 is ongoing.
BACKGROUND
Site Background (1,3,13):
• Holloman AFB is located on 50,700 acres of land in Otero County in south-central New Mexico.
The nearest population center is Alamogordo, which is located approximately 7 miles east of the
base boundary. Holloman AFB was operated prior to World War II as a transitional flight training
facility. The base was reactivated after WWII as a guided missile research and testing facility. In
1968, the base became host to the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing.
• An area surrounded by soil berms was previously used for storage of petroleum, oils and
lubricants (POLs). This area included fourteen 25,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks (ASTs).
The ASTs were used to store JP-4 jet fuel and diesel fuel and were removed in 1987.
• The former POL storage area was located on one-third of an acre in the northeastern portion of
the main base area at Holloman AFB. Figure 2 shows the location of Site 2/5 at Holloman.
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Chronic and acute surface releases
of JP-4 jet fuel, AVGAS, and diesel fuel from aboveground storage tanks.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
126
-------
Holloman AFB
AhB,Xj Alamogibrdo
i
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 1. Location of Holloman AFB
Prepared
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
127
Final
Octobers, 1998
-------
Holloman AFB
2;
Zi
ISS-2/5
Figure 2. Location of Site 2/5 at Holloman AFB
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
128
-------
Holloman AFB
Historical Activities Prior to Technology Application (3):
• Periodic overtopping of the ASTs in the POL storage area caused several spills of JP-4 jet fuel
and AVGAS in the 1960s and 1970s. The total volume of fuel spilled was not recorded. The areas
around these spills were identified as POL Spill Site 1.
• In 1978, 30,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel was released into the bermed area around the ASTs.
According to facility personnel, all but 1500 gallons of released fuel was recovered. The area
around this spill was identified as POL Spill Site 2.
In 1987, the 14 ASTs at IRP Site 2 (POL Spill Site 1) and Site 5 (POL Spill Site 2) were removed.
Site Investigation (3,4,13):
• An IRP Phase I Records Search was conducted for Holloman AFB in 1982 and 1983 (CH2M Hill,
1983). Sites 2 and 5 were identified separately in the Phase I report.
» In 1991 and 1992, a Remedial Investigation (Rl) was performed and risk assessments were
conducted for 29 sites at Holloman AFB, including Sites 2 and 5 (Radian, 1992). Sites 2 and 5
were combined into one site based on their close proximity to each other and similar nature. Risk
assessments determined that three sites, including Site 2/5, would require remedial action.
Investigation at Site 2/5 included completion of 16 soil borings and installation of 5 groundwater
monitoring wells. Contaminants of concern at the site included petroleum hydrocarbons,
especially benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX).
9 In 1992, a Corrective Measures Study was performed for the 29 sites at Holloman AFB. Remedial
Action Objectives (RAOs) were established for Holloman AFB in this plan. The New Mexico
Environmental Department (NMED) recommended that all petroleum-contaminated sites at
Holloman have soil clean up goals of 1000 mg/kg for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and
25 mg/kg for benzene.
• In 1993, a Predesign Investigation (PDI) was performed at Site 2/5, including completion of 9 soil
borings.
• In 1993, a feasibility study was performed for the three sites recommended for remediation
(Radian, 1993). Alternatives considered for Site 2/5 included: No action; Containment (clay
capping); In situ treatment (SVE/bioventing), In situ treatment (SVE/biosparging), Excavation/on-
site treatment (low-temperature thermal treatment) and backfill with treated soil; and, Excavation
and off-site disposal.
• In 1995, a Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report was issued for Table 1 SWMUs at
Holloman AFB.
• In 1995, A Decision Document for Site 2/5 was issued. This document described the selected
remedy (SVE), and long-term monitoring requirements for Site 2/5.
• A Final Characterization Study for Site 2/5 was submitted to NMED in March 1998. The site had
not been officially closed as of October 1998.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
129
-------
Holloman AFB
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
Mark Mercier
USAGE, Omaha District
CEMRO-ED-EA, 10th Floor
2 Central Park Plaza
222 South 15th Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4978
(402) 221-7666
Ronald Versaw, P.E.
Delivery Order Manager
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
143 Union Boulevard, Suite 1010
Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1824
Drew Lessard
Restoration Project Manager
49 CES/CEVR
550 Tabosa Avenue
Holloman AFB, New Mexico 88330
(505) 475-5395
Cornelius Amindyas
NMED
2044 Galisteo
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
(505) 827-1561
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (in situ)
SITE GEOLOGY/STRATIGRAPHY M.31
• Holloman AFB is located within the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico. This basin is a bolson, which
means that there is no surface drainage outlet from the basin. The bolson fill in the Tularosa
Basin is derived from the erosion of limestone, dolomite and gypsum in the surrounding
mountains. Coarser material is deposited at the base of the surrounding mountains; finer material
is carried to the basin's interior. The near-surface bolson deposits consist of sediments that are of
alluvial, eolian, and lacustrine or playa origin.
• Soil at Site 2/5 in the contaminated zone (down to 16 feet below ground surface (bgs)) is
exclusively characterized as "sm" (USCS designation) according to soil borings completed at the
site. The sm designation is described as: sand with fines; silty sands and sand-silt mixtures,
which may be poorly graded; nonplastic. Site stratigraphy consists primarily of clean to silty'sand
deposits interbedded with silt and clay lenses.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 9,1998
130
-------
, Holloman AFB
Groundwater at Site 2/5 occurs in a shallow unconfined aquifer approximately 10 feet bgs.
Despite this reported depth in the Holloman Rl Report, the boring logs from the 22 wells installed
for the SVE system indicated that the depth to groundwater was approximately 15 feet bgs in two
wells, and deeper (groundwater not encountered) in the remaining wells. The primary
groundwater flow direction at the site is to the northeast.
The groundwater beneath Holloman AFB is designated as unfit for human consumption based on
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission regulations because it exceeds New Mexico
Human Health Standards for total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfates. Based on guidance
provided under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, the groundwater at Holloman was
classified as III B. This classification indicates that the groundwater, by virtue of having a TDS
concentration above 10,000 mg/L, is not considered a source or potential source of drinking
water. In addition, Class III B groundwater is characterized by a low degree of interconnection
with adjacent surface waters or groundwaters of a higher class.
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Volatiles (nonhalogenated) - BTEX
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
Contaminant properties are provided below for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
rv '£, -^/SNI^-: '":«*'/
Chemical Formula
Molecular Weight
Specific Gravity
Vapor Pressure
Boiling Point
Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient (Kow)
Soil-Water Partition
Coefficient (K)
-
g/mole
-
Mm Hg
;c
-
-
*'**®&%j&-\
CeHs
78.11
0.88
95.2
80.1
132
83
5$F?F^™ :"$C5 "••.'-.&•:?. '4^- -:
J^Toluerje*'
CsHsCHa
92.14
0.87
28.1
110.6
537
300
23php5M5:--
C6H5C2HS
106.17
0.87
7
136.2
1,100
1,410
?-••%««*;
C6H4((CH3)2
106.17
0.86 - 0.88
10
138.3-144.4
1,830
240
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CONTAMINANTS
It is estimated that the extent of soil contamination at Site 2/5 is limited to a 80 foot wide by 200 foot long
rectangular area, and that the contamination extends to a depth of 16 feet bgs at the site. Figure 3 shows
the estimated area of contamination at Site 2/5. Soil samples collected during the Rl were analyzed for
metals using EPA SW-846 Methods 6010, 7060 and 7421, and were analyzed for organic compounds
using EPA SW-846 Methods 418.1 and 8240. Metals were either not detected or were detected below
applicable guidance levels in all samples, except for lead in one surface sample. Organic compounds and
TPH were detected in most of the borings, and indicated the presence of petroleum-related contaminants
in soil at the site. Results from organic compound analyses are discussed below.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
131
-------
Holloman AFB
HW.L01.OWC DC-RTG 8/27/98
EXISTING TANK STANDS,
COVERED WITH EARTH.
TANKS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
LEGEND
EW-t
+ EXTRAaiON WELL
PB-I
PRELIMINARY BORING (1993)
IW-A
-§- COMBINATION WEa
SB-1
fy CONFIRMATORY
BORING (1994)
O UTILITY POLE
O OVERHEAD LIGHT
Figure 3. Layout of Site 2/5
Kreparea py:
rinai
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
132
October 9,1998
-------
Holloman AFB
CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED SOIL (1.3)
Soil samples were collected at Site 2/5 from 16 borings completed during the Rl in 1991 and from
9 additional borings completed during a PDI performed in May 1993. Selected results (highest
concentrations) from these borings are shown in Table C-1.
The following table contains average pre-remediation concentrations for selected contaminants at
Site 2/5. These concentrations were calculated using all soil sampling results generated for site
2/5 during the Rl and PDI, including samples collected outside of the estimated area of
contamination.
'•'' .." - ,« '' " * '-V
"\ ' ?*'''• from Borinc
-'',,-/„ Paraftiete/ - ""'•
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
TRPH
r Average S$»il Concentrations -,
-------
Holloman AFB
Table C-2. Characteristics of Untreated Soil (1)*
Boring ID
(Location)
PB-1 (south)
PB-2 (south-
central)
PB-3 (north-
central)
PB-4 (north)
Maximum
Benzene
Concentration
Found (ug/kg)
2,900
ND
24,000
1,000
Maximum
Toluene
Concentration
Found (ug/kg)
35,000
21,000
45,000
35,000
Maximum
Xylene (total)
Concentration
Found! (ug/kg)
130,000
79,000
130,000
35,000
Maximum
Ethylbenzene
Concentration
Found (pg/kg)
49,000
48,000
59,000
65,000
Maximum ,"*'
TJtPH£/ '"-
Contamination
rppund(mg/kg)^
1,100
970
890
1,400
,"V-V, ' '
uses
Soil
Type
sm
sm
sm
sm
•Results from samples collected immediately prior to startup of the SVE system.
ND - not detected
sm - sand with fines; silty sands and sand-silt mixtures, which may be poorly graded; nonplastic
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Site Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Contaminant Sorption
Presence of Inclusions
Humic Content
USCS classification sm
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Soil Vapor Extraction
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Post-treatment (Water)
A knockout tank is used to collect condensate from the extraction system prior to contacting the vacuum
blower. Collected condensate is stored in 55-gallon drums and is disposed properly as necessary.
Post-treatment (Air)
In August 1997, a bioreactor was installed to treat a fraction of the vapor stream from the knockout tank.
Prior to August 1997, treatment of the vapor stream from the SVE system was not performed at Site 2/5.
It should be noted that treatment of the vapor stream from this system is not required by NMED. The
bioreactor was installed as part of a research project conducted by New Mexico State University.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
134
-------
Holloman AFB
Unfortunately, the unit did not function properly, and no meaningful vapor treatment performance data are
available for the bioreactor.
i'*l;%:::^l3%i'.
1982-1983!
1992
1993
December 1994
March 1995
April 1995 !
i
November 1996
August 1997
March 1998
H' ^ , '•«-,, '-''':" Activity': "•? -
CH2M Hill performed a Phase I Records Search for Holloman AFB.
Radian Corporation performed a Remedial Investigation for Holloman and risk
assessments for 29 sites at Holloman.
Radian Corporation performed a Feasibility Study for three sites (including Site
2/5) at Holloman.
IT Corporation began construction of the SVE system at Site 2/5 at Holloman.
Construction included installation of 22 SVE/passive air vent wells.
IT Corporation completed construction of the SVE system.
IT Corporation began operation of the SVE system.
IT Corporation completed 18 months of operation and maintenance (O&M) of
the SVE system. Foster Wheeler took over the O&M on 1 November 1 996.
A bioreactor was installed to treat the vapor discharge stream from the SVE
system (no vapor stream treatment had been used previously with the
system).
A Final Characterization Summary was submitted to NMED recommending
that no further remedial action be taken at Site 2/5.
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Figure 4 shows a simplified process flow diagram for the SVE system installed at Site 2/5.
Mobilization (1)
The contractor (IT Corporation) mobilized to the site on December 12, 1994. Mobilization included
establishment of the project field office, surveying of proposed boring, vapor probe and well locations and
inspection of all well installation equipment.
Construction (1)
• Sixteen (16) extraction wells, and six (6) combination extraction/passive vent wells were
installed.
• Nine (9) soil vapor monitoring probe groups were installed to monitor the performance of
the SVE system.
• Four (4) preliminary soil borings were installed to determine initial contaminant
concentrations in site soil.
SVE system process piping, the 2-horsepower SVE blower, the knockout tank and a system control panel
were installed. All of this equipment (other than the piping) was placed on an outdoor concrete slab
surrounded by a fence.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 9,1998
135
-------
Holloman AFB
Network of
SVE Extraction
Wells
Air
Air/Water
Separator
Condensate
Bioreactor
Collected in
55-Gallon
Drums
and Properly
Disposed
Discharged
Via On-Site
Exhaust Stack
Figure 4. Treatment Process Flow Diagram for the SVE System at Site 2/5
Prepared b1
£-
Coi
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
136
-------
Holloman AFB
The system was tested prior to full-scale operation. Testing included:
. Confirmation of system vacuum pressure, and methods of adjusting pressure
(system inlet valve and fresh air bleed-in valve).
The volume of system exhaust was calculated and air samples were collected to
i determine system emissions;
Piping was visually and audibly inspected for leaks;
All system valves were checked for proper operation and for any leakage or
; obstructions; and
System alarms were set and tested.
Operation (10)
The system was put into full-scale operation in April 1995 and is currently operating.
The system experienced approximately 1.5 months of down time during the first three months of
operation due to odor problems. These problems were addressed by raising the exhaust stack.
The system experienced approximately 1.5 months of down time from October to December 1995
due to repeated rapid filling of the water collection tank. This problem was addressed by
increasing the inspection schedule and emptying the collection tank more frequently.
In July 1997, all 22 wells were converted to full extraction mode, and the system vacuum
pressure was increased. These modifications were made to increase the contaminant removal
rate of the system. The rate increase was possible because the system was operating well below
New Mexico air emission guidelines (10 tons of VOCs allowed per year). It was determined that
the system would be operated at a higher removal rate until site soil concentrations were below
the guidance value of 1,000 mg/kg TPH, or until maximum allowable air emissions were
achieved. Since July 1997, the well configuration has been modified several times. As of June
1998, 12 extraction wells were in use.
In August and September 1997, a bioreactor (water-filled column) was installed to treat a fraction
of the air stream from the SVE system. The bioreactor was installed by New Mexico State
University. Prior to this time the air stream was not treated, as NMED did not require treatment.
This unit did not function properly and is no longer in use.
Throughout system operation, various extraction well configurations have been used. Prior to
July 1997, the maximum number of extraction wells employed was 16. As many as 22 wells (all
wells at the site) have been used for extraction since July 1997.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
137
-------
Holloman AFB
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE (2.10)
Air Flow Rate (typical)
Operating PressureA/acuum (typical)
Operating Time
Air Discharge Temperature (typical)
70 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM)
25.0 inches of water (since 1 1/96)
23,492 hours of operation through June 1998
65-75 degrees Fahrenheit
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
• The soil cleanup goals for this application were developed based on the results of negotiations
with the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED).
• The negotiated cleanup goals for this application consist of the following:
TPH- 1000mg/kg
Benzene - 25 mg/kg
Removal of floating free-phase hydrocarbons from groundwater
These are basewide goals for remedial activities at all POL sites.
• Groundwater at Holloman AFB was classified according the EPA Groundwater Protection
Strategy. The groundwater was given a classification of III B (groundwater not a source of
drinking water). Based on this classification, and because no floating free-phase hydrocarbons
have been observed at the site, no groundwater cleanup goals were established for this site.
TREATMENT PLAN
No treatability studies or pilot tests were conducted prior to remediation at Site 2/5. SVE treatment was
selected based on the recommendation of the December 1993 Feasibility Study.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA (6.10)
• Using data gathered prior to system startup, it was estimated that average soil TPH
concentrations were 3,000 mg/kg prior to implementation of the SVE system. As mentioned
previously, this assumption is documented in Reference 10 to this report In September 1996,
sampling indicated that the average soil TPH concentrations were approximately 1,600 mg/kg. As
with the preliminary soil sampling event, samples were collected along the approximate centerline
of the contaminated area. Data from the September 1996 sampling event are presented below in
Table TPD-1.
• In September and October 1997, soil sampling was performed at Site 2/5 to determine if clean up
criteria had been met. Sample locations were similar to those chosen for the 1994 and 1996
sampling events. In addition two borings (LT05 and LT06) were completed south of the main area
of contamination. Results indicated that TPH concentrations at Site 2/5 had been reduced below
1,000 mg/kg (average TPH concentration was 150 mg/kg) and that benzene concentrations in
soil remained below 25 mg/kg, as they have throughout the project. Table TPD-2 shows results
from the 1997 sampling event. Figure 5 shows the sampling point locations for the 1996 and 1997
sampling events.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
138
-------
Table TPD-1. Preliminary and Interim Confirmatory Soil Sampling Data at Site 2/5 [10]
Holloman AFB
Boring ID,,
^ (Locatjon)
Date/Boring ID
SB-01 (south end)
SB-02
SB-03
SB-04 (north end)
- '•; Depth Interval
'"' .(feet-bgs) , f
12/94
5-7
10-12
15-17
NS
5-7
10-12
15-17
5-7
10-12
15-17
5-7
10-12
15-17
5-7(dup)
09/96
4-8
9.5-10.5
13-15
13-5
(dup)
5-6
9.5-10.5
14-15
4.5-5.5
10-11
13-15
4.5-5,5
10-11
14-15
NS
Benzene'Concentration
- '(ug/kg>> ;
12/94
ND
ND
2,900
NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24,000
ND
1,000
810
ND
09/96
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2,300
NS
Tpliiene Concentration
- \ (ug/fcg),,.
12/94
9,100
35,000
27,000
NS
21,000
6,900
5,900
14,000
6,300
45,000
4,100
18,000
6,400
1,700
09/96
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5,800
NS
Xylenfe (total) , j *
.Concentration (ug/kg)
12/94
90,000
44,000
130,000
NS
79,000
71,000
70,000
130,000
70,000
130,000
60,000
180,000
50,000
11,000
09/96
ND
38,000
32,000
35,000
410
260,000
200,000
ND
14,000
110,000
170
220,000
75,000
NS
Ethylbenzenej
Concentration (ug/kg)
12/94
27,000
13,000
49,000
NS
48,000
22,000
28,000
26,000
19,000
59,000
27,000
65,000
19,000
4,600
09/96
120
6,500
4,800
5,300
99
19,000
58,000
ND
1,700
33,000
ND
82,000
26,000
NS
TPH Concentration^ :
'-Ktig/kg) - c
12/94*
1,100
490
760
NS
970
820
520
140
560
890
390
1,400
480
1,100
09/96
244
945
787
1,530
619
4,030
2,670
2,080
895
1,640
440
3,930
962
962
ND - Not Detected
NS-Not Sampled
* - 12/94 results were determined to be anomalous for TPH. 3000 mg/kg TPH was assumed to be the initial soil concentration.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
139
Octobers, 1998
-------
HollomanAFB
Table TPD-2. Final Confirmatory Soil Sampling Results (13)
Boring ID
LT01
LT02
LT03
LT04
LT05
LT06
Depth
(feet bgs)
10-11
17-18
13-14
16-17
12-13
17-18
11-12
16-17
11-12
12.5-13.5
Benzene
Concentration
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
ND
ND
9.1
ND
ND
Toluene
Concentration
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.9
0.7
3.6
65.0
ND
0.4
Ethylbenzene
Concentration
(mg/kg)
ND
8.6
28.0
ND
72.0
6.5
41.0
190.0
ND
5.7
Xylene
Concentration
(mg/kg)
ND
100.0
4.0
0.9
254.0
16.9
103.0
379.0
ND
60.0
TPH
Concentration
(mg/kg)
390
300
170
ND
220
67
80
130
ND
150
Prepared by:
Final
October 9,1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
140
-------
Holloman AFB
EXISTING TANK STANDS.
COVERED WITH EARTH.
TANKS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
LEGEND
SB-1
3 1996 SAMPLING EVENT
• 1997 SAMPLING EVENT
O UTILITY POLE
Q OVERHEAD LIGHT
NOTE: PREVIOUS BORINGS (PRIOR TO 1997) WITH SOIL TPH CONCENTRATIONS
BELOW 1000 mg/kg ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS FIGURE.
Figure 5 - Confirmatory Sampling Locations
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
October 9,1998
141
-------
Holloman AFB
Based on Monthly Project Metrices and Quarterly Project Status Reports generated throughout the
course of the project, the following additional treatment performance data have been generated:
• The total estimated mass of TPH removed from the site (through December 1997) is 44,000
pounds (22 tons). This mass was calculated using results from air sampling of the exhaust stream
from the SVE system.
• The monthly unit cost for TPH removal has varied from less than $3 per pound removed to nearly
$21 per pound. The majority of the monthly unit costs have fallen between $3 and $6 per pound
removed.
• As discussed earlier, average soil TPH concentrations at Site 2/5 have dropped from an
estimated 3000 mg/kg to 150 mg/kg (October 1997). The clean up goal for the site is 1000 mg/kg.
Sampling data indicate that benzene concentrations in site soil do not exceed the base-wide
clean up goal of 25 mg/kg.
• The average monthly VOC concentrations in air emissions from the system were consistently
near 1000 ppm from April 1995 through September 1996. In 1997, discharge concentrations
varied from 1000 ppm to 4000 ppm due to various modifications to system operating parameters.
• The monthly O&M cost has typically varied between $3000 and $6000, with two sharply higher
months in 1995 and 1996.
• The average TPH removal rate has typically varied between 2 and 3 pounds per hour.
Material Balance: A material balance cannot be performed for this application because initial
contaminant volumes were not known. Removals can be estimated by using air emission concentrations,
but there are no initial volumes for comparison and mass balance calculation.
Removal Efficiencies (10,13): At the time of the September 1996 interim sampling event, removal
efficiencies were estimated by comparing VOC average concentrations with data gathered in December
of 1994 (prior to system start up). Because TPH results from the December 1994 sampling event were
considered anomalous, an initial TPH concentration of 3000 mg/kg was assumed. As mentioned
previously, this assumption is documented in Reference 10 to this report. Based on these comparisons
the following interim percent removals were achieved:
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
47%
53%
91%
42%
12%
Percent removals based on data gathered during the October 1997 sampling event are shown below.
These percentages were also calculated using 3000 mg/kg as an initial concentration for TPH.
TPH
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
95%
99%
99%
99%
99%
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
142
-------
Holloman AFB
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY
It appears that a plan for sampling and analysis QA/QC was used for the confirmatory and initial sampling
events at Site 2/5, including the collection of field duplicates, and the performance of typical laboratory
QA/QC procedures. This plan was not available when this report was written.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Details regarding the procurement process were not available for this project. IT Corporation was
selected as the prime contractor for construction of the SVE system. The scope of work for IT also
included performance of one year of treatment system O&M. The contract price for this project was
$548,046. In November 1996, after 18 months of system O&M, Foster Wheeler took over operation of the
system. Foster Wheeler has performed system O&M from November 1996 through October 1998
(treatment ongoing). The mass of contaminants present at Site 2/5 has never been estimated, however, it
has been estimated that 9500 cubic yards of soil were contaminated prior to commencement of remedial
activities. Therefore, the bid cost can be converted to $58 per cubic yard of contaminated soil.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (2.7)
• Bid specifications and a scope of services were developed in August 1993 for the Holloman AFB
Site 2/5 remediation project. The government estimate for the project was $550,780. The project
tasks included installation of the SVE treatment system and 12 months of system operation and
maintenance (O&M).
• In 1993, IT Corporation was awarded a contract for $548,046 to perform the Site 2/5 remediation
project. It was estimated that $343,000 of the cost was for construction of the system, and that
12 months of system O&M would cost $205,000.
• Following 18 months of system operation (completed in September 1996), O&M was turned over
to Foster Wheeler. From October 1996 through August 1997 the cost for system O&M has been
approximately $60,000, bringing the total project cost to approximately $610,000. This has
increased the unit cost for treatment to $64 per cubic yard of contaminated soil.
• The costs for Site 2/5 remediation (soil vapor extraction) were categorized according to the
HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), which includes specific cost elements
for before-treatment activities, cost elements for activities directly attributed to treatment, and cost
elements for after-treatment activities. Using the WBS, the costs for remediation at Site 2/5 were
categorized as shown below in Table Cost 1.
Table Cost 1. Summary of Costs for SVE Activities at Site 2/5
Categorized According to the WBS (12)
wiei'iS'lti;-:*1*' ~-'«*»r**
WaJjS.NO^ : ^..ifei
33-01 and 33-21
33-02
33-113-23
33-113-23-02-08
•If 3?;:f5? ;A£tiyJil 'S^-'s^
Mobilization and
demobilization
Sampling and Analysis
SVE installation costs
SVE system O&M
(,S***!|osfr(|l^:-,:^;:^
34,884
21,941
286,822
267,000
"tWf/-'-''!Si QLpriiMient ^*;"' '*• fj
Before treatment activities
Sampling ongoing
Treatment ongoing
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
143
Final
Octobers, 1998
-------
Holloman AFB
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
According to facility personnel at Holloman AFB, no permits were required for installation and operation of
the SVE treatment system. It was necessary for the system to meet applicable state requirements
pertaining to operation, including allowable air emissions.
For the duration of this project, the state of New Mexico (NMED) has taken the lead in implementing
closure of Site 2/5. The USEPA has been involved with the project, but mostly to provide concurrent
review of plans and reports.
Site 2/5 clean up criteria are base-wide criteria previously developed for Holloman AFB. These criteria
are:
• 1000 mg/kg TPH in soil;
• 25 mg/kg benzene in soil; and
• Removal of free-phase hydrocarbons from the groundwater surface.
Because benzene has never been detected above 25 mg/kg and free-phase hydrocarbons have not been
observed in the groundwater at Site 2/5, only TPH removal was required at Site 2/5.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The awarded contract amount of $548,046 can be converted to an estimated cost for treatment of $58 per
cubic yard of contaminated soil (9500 cubic yards to be treated). Based on the current cumulative project
cost of approximately $610,000, the treatment cost has increased to $64 per cubic yard.
According to project personnel, equipment costs for the treatment system could have been reduced by
substituting less expensive, painted PVC piping for fiberglass piping. It is unknown why fiberglass piping
was used for this project.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
According to project personnel, the treatment system performance could have been improved by
minimizing groundwater fluctuations at the site. Contaminant removal rates could have been increased by
keeping the groundwater levels from rising significantly during periods of wet weather. A system of
extraction wells could have been used to perform dewatering at the site.
In addition, field personnel have reported that the plastic sampling ports on the treatment system become
degraded easily when exposed to direct sunlight, and require replacement.
REFERENCES
1) Construction Phase Final Report, Site 2/5, POL Site Remediation, Holloman AFB, New Mexico,
Prepared by IT Corporation, Denver, Colorado, August 1995.
2) Quarterly Project Status Report, April - September 1997, Sites 2 and 5/BX Service
Station/Former FireTraining Area/POL Washrack/Officer's Club/T-38 Test Cell/Building
828/SWMU 136 Treatment System, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation,
Lakewood, Colorado, November 1997.
Prepared by:
Final
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Octobers, 1998
144
-------
Holloman AFB
3) Remedial Investigation Report, Investigation, Study and Recommendation for 29 Waste Sites,
Prepared by Radian Corporation, October 1992.
4) Draft Final Feasibility Study, Investigation, Study and Recommendation for 29 Waste Sites,
Prepared by Radian Corporation, December 1993.
5) RCRA Facility Investigation, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, October 1994.
6) Project Metrix Update for Holloman Air Force Base, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental
Corporation, Lakewood, Colorado, September 1997.
7) Scope of Services for Contract No. DACW45-89-D-0504, Soil Vapor Extraction System, Site 2/5
& Infiltration well System, Site 57, Holloman AFB, New Mexico, August 1993.
8) Quarterly Project Status Report, January - March 1997, BX Service Station/ T-38 Test Cell /POL
Washrack/Building 828/FT-31 Former FireTraining Area /Sites 2 and 5/Officer's Club Treatment
Systems, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Lakewood, Colorado,
November 1997.
9) Cost Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies, Project Name: Sites 2 and 5, Soil Vapor
Extraction System (SVE), Holloman AFB, Otero County, New Mexico, Prepared by the USAGE,
no date provided.
10) Operation and Maintenance Phase, Final Engineering Report, Site 2/5 POL Site Remediation,
Holloman AFB, New Mexico, Prepared by IT Corporation, Denver, Colorado, March 1997.
11) Specifications (For Construction Contract), Attachment E, Site 2/5 POL Site Remediation,
Prepared by the USAGE, Omaha District, August 1993.
12) Facsimile communication from Rick Macfarlane (CESWA-CO-SA-H) to Jim Peterson (CEMRO-
HX-T), Description of to date costs for Holloman AFB Site 2/5 project, November 1996.
13) Final Characterization Summary and No Further Action Documentation for IRP Sites SS-2/5 POL
Yard (SWMU AOC-T), SD-47 POL Washrack Area (SWMU 133), and SS-60 Building 828
(SWMU 230), Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Lakewood, Colorado,
March 1998.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
Octobers, 1998
145
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
146
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Cupertino, California
147
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Cupertino, California
Site Name:
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Location:
Cupertino, California
Contaminants:
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Period of Operation:
May 1988 to August 23, 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor/Consultant:
Susan Colman
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
100 Pine Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415)743-7031
Additional Contacts:
Information not provided
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction:
- Seven extraction wells (six
installed in pairs - one in the
shallow vadose zone the other in
the deep vadose zone
- Three carbon bins to adsorb
contaminants from the extracted
soil vapor
- Air flow rates in individual wells
ranged from 3 to 38 scfrn (data on
total system flow was not
available)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD date: September 1990
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Richard Procunier
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-2219
State Contact:
Habte Kifle*
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
(510)622-2371
Waste Source: Waste from the
manufacture of semiconductors and
related wafer fabrication
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil- 280,000 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE application
using paired wells
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD identified the following remedial goals for soil: total VOCs - 1 mg/kg and total SVOCs -10 mg/kg.
- Air emissions standards for the SVE system, identified as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
allowed an annual average of 2 pounds per day (Ibs/day) of organics to be emitted.
Results:
- Total VOCs were below the remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for 79 of 80 soil boring confirmatory samples. For one
sample, total VOCs was reported as 1.1 mg/kg. However, the results of an assessment of the significance of the
single exceedance indicated that, with a confidence level of greater than 95 percent, the soil remedial goal was
met.
- According to Geomatrix, SVOCs were not detected in any samples.
- From May 1988 to December 1992, the removal rate for TCE decreased from approximately 15.5 Ibs/day to
less than 0.5 Ibs/day and approximately 3,000 Ibs of TCE were extracted.
148
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Cupertino, California (continued)
Cost:
- Total cost of $770,000, including $550,000 in capital and $220,000 in O&M costs.
- Corresponds to a unit cost of $3 per cubic yard for 280,000 cubic yards of soil treated, and $260 per pound of
contaminant removed (3,000 Ibs removed).
Description:
The 12-acre Intersil/Siemens Superfund site, located in suburban Cupertino, California, includes two industrial
properties used for the manufacture of semiconductors and related wafer fabrication - the Intersil facility, which
operated from 1967 to 1988, and the Siemens facility, which has manufactured semiconductors at the site since
1978 and is an operating facility. The facilities used a variety of chemicals and chemical solutions in their
manufacturing operations, including etching solutions, organic solvents and chemical mixtures. Soils and
groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic comounds
(SVOCs) were discovered on each of the sites, and several interim actions, including SVE, were implemented at
the site. The site was listed on the NPL in August 1990. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in September
1990 that incorporated the interim remedies including SVE. This report focuses on the completed SVE
application at the Intersil property. The ROD identified the following remedial goals for soil: total VOCs - 1
mg/kg and total SVOCs - 10 mg/kg. Air emissions standards for the SVE system, identified as the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, allowed an annual average of 2 pounds per day (Ibs/day) of organics to be emitted.
The interim SVE system, which began operating in May 1988, included four vertical vapor extraction wells. As
part of the final remedy, the SVE system was expanded in May 1991 to include three additional extraction wells.
Six of the wells were installed in pairs along the eastern portion of the Intersil building - one well in the shallow
vadose zone (about 10 to 50 feet deep) and the other in the deep vadose zone (about 60 to 100 feet deep). The
sixth well was located along the western portion of the building. Three carbon bins were used to adsorb
contaminants from the extracted soil vapor. Air flow rates in individual wells ranged from 3 to 38 scfrn.
According to the vendor (Geomatrix), total system flow and TCE concentrations for the total system were not
available and the SVE system generally operated continuously until it was shut down (August 23, 1993). Based
on the results of confirmatory soil samples, total VOCs were below the remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for 79 of 80 of
the samples. For one sample, total VOCs was reported as 1.1 mg/kg. However, the results of an assessment of
the significance of the single exceedance indicated that, with a confidence level of greater than 95 percent, the
soil remedial goal was met. According to Geomatrix, SVOCs were not detected in any samples. From May 1988
to December 1992, the removal rate for TCE decreased from approximately 15.5 Ibs/day to less than 0.5 Ibs/day
and approximately 3,000 Ibs of TCE were extracted.
The total cost of $770,000 for this application included $550,000 in capital costs and $220,000 in O&M costs.
This corresponds to a unit cost of $3 per cubic yard for 280,000 cubic yards of soil treated, and $260 per pound
of contaminant removed (3,000 Ibs removed).
149
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Soil Vapor Extraction at the Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Cupertino, California
Summary Information fl. 2.4.5.6.71
The 12-acre Intersil/Siemens Superfund site is located in
suburban Cupertino, California. The site includes two
industrial properties used for the manufacture of
semiconductors and related wafer fabrication - the Intersil
facility, which operated from 1967 to 1988, and the Siemens
facility, which has manufactured semiconductors at the site
since 1978 and is an operating facility. The facilities used a
variety of chemicals and chemical solutions in their
manufacturing operations, including etching solutions, organic
solvents (for example, trichloroethene (TCE),
1,1,1 - trichloroethane (TCA), methanol, isopropanol, n-butyl
acetate, acetone, xylene, freon, and ethylbenzene) and
chemical mixtures that reportedly contained phenols and
toluene. The facilities had a number of underground waste
handling facilities - five waste solvent tanks and an acid
dilution basin at Siemens; three acid neutralization systems,
two scrubber sumps, and a waste storage tank at Intersil.
During a 1982 underground storage tank investigation
conducted by the state, soils contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were discovered on each of the
sites, as well as outside the property boundaries. The
suspected sources of the contamination included spills, leaks
from the underground waste handling facilities, and leaks
from underground piping. A remedial investigation (RI) was
initiated in 1982. Initial subsurface investigations found TCE,
TCA, and trichlorobenzene contamination at the Siemens
property in the vicinity of former waste solvent tanks 1 and 3.
TCA concentrations were reported in the soil as high as
11,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Additional site
investigations found TCA and TCE contamination at the
Intersil property at concentrations as high as 10 mg/kg.
The results of the groundwater investigation of both properties
showed on-site and off-site contamination of the groundwater.
Groundwater TCE concentrations were found as high as
26,000 micrograms per liter (/wg/L) at the Siemens property
and as high as 33,000 jug/L at the Intersil property. The
groundwater contamination plumes from both properties in
the upper hydrogeologic unit, or A-zone, had commingled,
migrated to the lower unit, or B-zone, and migrated off-site.
The RI continued over a period of eight years. During this time,
several interim remedial actions occurred. At the Siemens
property, a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system and a groundwater
pump-and-treat system were installed in 1983. At the Intersil
property, the east underground acid neutralization system and a
waste solvent tank were removed in 1986 and an SVE system and
a groundwater pump-and-treat system were installed in 1987. In
the fall of 1988, additional potential source areas of
contamination were removed from the Intersil property. These
included the north neutralization system, the scrubber sumps, and
an above-ground waste storage area. A groundwater pump-and-
treat system was installed by both companies to treat the off-site
groundwater contamination.
The site was proposed for the NPL in June 1988 and was listed in
August 1990. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in
September 1990. The selected remedy in the ROD incorporated
the interim response actions described above. The ROD specified
continued operation of the SVE and groundwater pump-and-treat
systems at both properties, continued operation of the off-site
groundwater pump-and-treat system, excavation and off-site
disposal of soil contaminated with greater than 10 mg/kg
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) at the Siemens
property, continued monitoring of the soil at both properties, and
continued on- and off-site groundwater monitoring.
This report focuses on the completed SVE application at the
Intersil property. The SVE application at the Siemens property
was on-going at the time of this report and, therefore, is not
addressed in this report.
From May 1988 to August 1993, approximately 280,000 cubic
yards (yd3) of contaminated soil were treated by the SVE system
application at Intersil. The volume of soil requiring treatment
was based on an estimate of the quantity of soil which contained
TCE in excess of the remedial goal (1 mg/kg of total VOCs).
CERCLIS ID Number:
Lead:
CAD041472341 |
California Regional Water I
Quality Control Board 1
(CA RWQCB) |
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
150
-------
• Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Timeline [2.3.4.71
1987
May 1988
January 1990
August 15, 1990
September 27, 1990
May 3 1,1991
November 2 -
December 31, 1992
December 28, 1993
May 14, 1993
August 23, 1993
August - December
1993
Interim SVE system designed and
installed at Intersil
Interim SVE system full-scale
operation began
RI at Intersil site completed
Site Cleanup Requirements
(SCR) Order No. 90-1 19 issued
by RWQCB
ROD for Intersil issued
SVE system expanded from four
to seven vapor extraction wells as
part of the final remedy described
in SCR Order No. 90-119
Confirmation sampling
conducted to evaluate cleanup
progress
SCR Order No. 90-1 19 amended,
reducing groundwater monitoring
frequency from quarterly to semi-
annual ly
Complete curtailment of soil
remediation approved by
RWQCB
SVE system shut down
SVE system decommissioned;
site backfilling and compaction
of excavations conducted
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment
14.71
Geology at the Intersil site consists of interbedded coarse- and
fine-grained sediments which are characteristic of alluvial
stream channel and associated floodplain deposits. These
deposits extend to between 105 and 120 feet below ground
surface (bgs), the approximate depth of the water table.
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics that affected the
cost or performance of this technology and the values measured
for each.
Matrix Characteristics
•\" _ jPara-flieter
Soil Classification/
Particle Size Distribution:
Moisture Content:
Air Permeability:
Porosity:
Total Organic Carbon:
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids:
; Vala* '--
Interbedded coarse-grained
sand and gravel, and fine-
grained silt and clay
4.4-21.9%
Not available
33-47%
6-12%
Not identified
Treatment Technology Description \2.3.4]
The interim SVE system, which began operating in May 1988,
included four vertical vapor extraction wells (VE-1 through VE-
4). As part of the final remedy, the SVE system was expanded in
May 1991 to include three additional extraction wells (VE-5, VE-
7, VE-8). As shown in Figure 1, six of the wells were installed in
pairs along the eastern portion of the Intersil building. For these
pairs, one well was installed in the shallow vadose zone (about 10
to 50 feet deep) and the other in the deep vadose zone (about 60
to 100 feet deep). Well VE-5 was located along the western
portion of the building. Three carbon bins were used to adsorb
contaminants from the extracted soil vapor.
Data on flow rates, TCE concentrations, and TCE removal rates
were collected on a monthly basis at each well head. Table 1
presents available data through March 1993. According to the
vendor (Geomatrix), total system flow and TCE concentrations
for the total system were not available.
According to the vendor, the SVE system generally operated
continuously until it was shut down (August 23, 1993).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
151
-------
• Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Figure 1. Site Plan Showing Vadose Zone Wells [3]
Siemens Facility
Forge Drive
vis® sy2s e
>V4S ©V1D V2D©
V4D .....,,.
^'gVE-Z (Formerly W1A)
V3S
IV3D
V6S
V6D
e
VE-5 (Formerly .—1«
J W4AA) |~
INTERSIL, INC.
BUILDING T2
}VE-7
9VE-8
V8C
ayas
BVE-3
J
Legend
VE-5 © Approximate location of inactive vapor extraction well
V3S ® Approximate location of shallow vadose zone well
V3D © Approximate location of deep vadose zone well
VE-1 ® Approximate location of destroyed vapor extraction well
V6S © Approximate location of destroyed shallow vadose zone well
V6D © Approximate location of destroyed deep vadose zone well
Notes
1. Base map modified from Plot Plan, Location of Monitoring Wells at
Intersil Facilities, prepared by Ruth and Going, Inc. 25 September
1986, and November 1990, Job No. 17040-122.
2. Well locations are approximate.
3. All wells were destroyed during November 1993 under permit from
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Table 1. Extraction Well Data (Through March 1993) [2, 7]
^^.^^ellNo.. ' " "j
VE-1
VE-2
VE-3
VE-4*
VE-5
VE-7
VE-8
Total System
Flow Rate Range (scfm) ,
1 1 - 37.9
9-21
6.5 - 30
NA
13-26
3-7
1.6-5.4
NA
..T^^^ffeo^fflg^^mv);
<0.02 - 590
<0.09 - 548
<0.02-161
NA
<0.73 - 24.2
1.0-22.4
<0.3 - 33.5
NA
, TCI ftpttoval'i&te Mange
-------
Listed below are the key operating parameters that affected
the cost or performance of this technology and the values
measured for each.
Operating Parameters
',/j. Parameter
Air Flow Rate:
Operating Vacuum:
-;)\ ^-^a!«ev : r\
See Table 1
Approximately 4.5 inches Hg at
blower; approximately 1 inch Hg
at SVE well heads
Performance Information H. 2.4.7]
The ROD identified the following remedial goals for soil:
• Total VOCs -1 mg/kg
Total SVOCs - 10 mg/kg
Total VOCs was defined as the sum of the detected volatile
organic compounds. Total SVOCs was defined as the sum of
the detected semivolatile organic compounds.
Air emissions standards for the SVE system were identified as
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regulation 8,
Rule 47 requirements. The operating permit allowed an
annual average of 2 pounds per day (Ibs/day) of organics to be
emitted.
An estimated 429 soil samples were collected from 50 soil
borings during the RI. Table 2 summarizes the range of
concentrations measured in selected soil borings during the
RI. According to Geomatrix, only 33 of the 429 samples (less
than 10 percent) contained total VOC concentrations above 1
mg/kg. The maximum concentration of VOCs detected
during RI sampling was 7.0 mg/kg.
A total of 80 soil samples were collected from 16 soil borings
during confirmation sampling (November 2 - December 31,
1992). Results from these samples, summarized in Table 2,
show total VOCs below the remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for 79
of 80 soil boring samples. For one sample, total VOCs was
reported as 1.1 mg/kg. According to Geomatrix, SVOCs were
not detected in any samples. Figure 3 shows the locations of
RI and confirmation sample borings.
Intersil/Siemens Superftrad Site
To assess the significance of the single exceedance,
Geomatrix analyzed the data using the methodology presented
in EPA's Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup
Standards, Volume I: Soil and Solid Media. Results of the
analysis indicated that, with a confidence level of greater than
95 percent, the soil remedial goal was met. RWQCB
approved curtailment on May 14,1993.
The concentrations of TCE in the confirmation samples were
identical to the concentrations of total VOCs in 15 of the 16
soil boring locations, indicating that TCE was the primary
contributor to the total VOC concentration.
According to Geomatrix, the SVE system at the Intersil site
met the air emissions standards for this application.
Figure 2 shows the removal rate and cumulative mass removal
for TCE from May 1988 to December 1992. During this time,
the removal rate for TCE decreased from approximately 15.5
Ibs/day to less than 0.5 Ibs/day and approximately 3,000 Ibs of
TCE were extracted.
Removal rate data for TCE were also provided for each well
as monthly averages from the start date of well operation
through March 1993 (Table 1). TCE removal rates ranged as
follows for each well: (VE-1) - 0 to 7.61 Ibs/day; (VE-2) - 0
to 5.5 Ibs/day; (VE-3) - 0 to 2.3 Ibs/day; (VE-5) - 0 to .21
Ibs/day; (VE-7) - <.01 to .06 Ibs/day; (VE-8) - 0 to .04
Ibs/day.
As shown in Table 1, TCE concentrations ranged as follows
for each well: (VE-1) - <0.02 to 590 parts per million dry
volume (ppmv); (VE-2) - <0.09 to 548 ppmv; (VE-3) - O.02
to 161; (VE-5) - <0.03 to 24.2 ppmv; (VE-7) - 1 to 22.4
ppmv; (VE-8) - <0.3 to 33.5 ppmv. Extracted vapor sampling
data for the total system were not available.
Performance Data Quality [2]
Confirmation soil samples were analyzed by Anametrix, Inc.
for Geomatrix in accordance with EPA-approved methods.
Samples from borings VB-1 through VB-6 were analyzed in
accordance with EPA Methods 8010 and 8020. Samples from
borings VB-7 through VB-16 were analyzed in accordance
with EPA Method 8010. No exceptions to quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols were noted in
the available references.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
153
-------
Intersil/Siemens Super fund Site
Table 2. Treatment Performance Data [2]
0.015-0.172
ND - 0.004
i- ^»
-03
ND
ND - 0.004
-0.
ND
ND - o.o
Bi' W
ND-0.25
0.009 - 0.073
4.5 - 70.5
1'T'^'f "f"y2'"g
,4.5 : 66.5
ND-o.6 ND-0.16
ND - 0.019 ND - 0.02
4.5 - 92.5
}Q.S -86.5
** i f.
™iJE™
0.006 - 0.227
0.0035 - 0.022 0.0035 - 0.022
0.022-0.7$ "
ND - not detected at 0.0005 mg/kg detection limit.
* A total of 429 soil borings were taken during the RI. The RI data included in this table are from 90 of the soil borings
that were closest to the location of the soil borings taken during confirmation sampling.
Figure 2. SVE Total System Removal Rate and Cumulative Removal Mass of TCE (IMay 1998 - Dec 1992) [2]
3000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
154
-------
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
North Tantau Avenue
^s.
Ara -R-2 \
•RI-26 | | llRI-25 "RI-24 »VB-11
r INTERSIL, INC.
i BUILDING T2 |RI.5
0 RI-23 RI-21 m B«A2A
• RI-30 • . • • RI-18
. BRI-29 RII22 RI-20
ABO I "R|-28 6A- .no VB'13
RJ-9 rVB^ ^ 3A ( | VB-15if ™ ^ rVE-2 •
VB-2\*i \ ^ / OT&VE-1
\ RUG* B7ANU L/ABZ ,r,«wr, & ^ .VB-9
\ VB-3» •la"VB-5X* tOW»=" DI v|.7j •VB-14
\ VE-4-PSk/ R'-17 .x/0AVE-8 VD'VB-8
\ RI-1A,.i'(CVE"3 "R|-7 •Rl'6
i™" 4A VB-12*
. RM3« ^« •VB'16 'V8-10
: PM,H ••••»• Um -Rue
««™ —
RI-1 SB \R|-14
•RI-32
^^^ Vapor and groundwater
•^•^Jj^V^^^^^ treatment plant
0 80 Feet
I
TI
o
c3
CD
D
1
(
•RI-3
CO
•RI-4 g
CD
VI
Tl
1
V
Legend
VE- 1 Approximate location of destroyed vapor extraction well
VB-1 © VES evaluation boring
B9 • Pre-RI soil boring
RI-1 A RI soil boring
• Former waste-handling area
Notes
1 . Base map modified from Plot Plan, Location of Monitoring Wells at Intersil Facilities, prepared by
Ruth and Going, Inc. 25 September 1986, and November 1990, Job No. 17040-122.
2. Well locations are approximate.
3. All wells were destroyed during November 1 993 under permit from Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Figure 3. Site Plan Showing VES Wells and Sampling Locations [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
-------
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Cost Information f31
Cost information provided by Geomatrix indicated that a total
of $770,000 was expended for SVE activities at Intersil. Prior
to remediation, a total of $439,000 was expended on the
remedial investigation and feasibility study. All costs were
rounded to the nearest $1,000 by Geomatrix. No additional
detail on the elements included within capital and O&M costs
was provided.
The total cost of $770,000 (capital and O&M) corresponds to
a unit cost of $3 per cubic yard for 280,000 cubic yards of soil
treated, and $260 per pound of contaminant removed (3,000
Ibs removed).
Actual Project Costs
L' i ' T> Cost Element
Capital
Operation & Maintenance
Disposal of Residuals
Analytical (related to compliance
monitoring, not technology
performance)
Total Project Cost
Other
-RMFS
550,000
220,000
0
0
770,000
439,000
Observations and Lessons Learned [1.2.4]
The SVE system application at Intersil achieved the remedial
goal for this application of 1 mg/kg for total VOCs. TCE, the
primary contributor to total VOCs at this site, was reduced
from a maximum of 7.0 mg/kg to less than 1 mg/kg, with one
exception.
Geomatrix performed a statistical analysis using EPA
methodology to assess whether the soil remedial goal of 1
mg/kg for total VOCs was met for this application. For one
soil boring analysis, the TCE concentration was slightly
higher than the remedial goal; however, it was shown that the
goal was met with a confidence level of greater than 95%.
The ROD estimated the time to achieve soil cleanup using
SVE to be five years. Based on confirmatory sampling in
December 1992, the SVE system at Intersil had met the
remedial goal of 1 mg/kg for total VOCs within five years of
operation; the system was shut down after 63 months of
operation.
The TCE removal rate (Ibs/day) for the three wells added in May
1991 as part of the final remedy (VE-5, VE-7, VE-8) was lower
than the rate for the original extraction wells. By May 1991, the
system had already removed about 2,700 Ibs of TCE or 90
percent of the total amount of TCE removed by the system.
Contact Information
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Richard Procunier
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 744-2219
E-mail: procunier.richard@epamail.epa.gov
State Contact:
Habte Kifle*
California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510)622-2371
E-mail: hk@r2.swrcb.ca.gov
Facsimile: (510)622-2460
Consultant:
Susan Colman
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
100 Pine Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415)743-7031
E-mail: scohnan@geomatrix.com
Facsimile: (415)434-1365
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. EPA. 1990. Record of Decision: Intersil/Siemens Superfund
Site, Cupertino, California. September 27.
2. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 1993. Proposal to Curtail Soil
Vapor Extraction, Former Intersil Facility, Cupertino,
California. Prepared for Intersil, Inc. May.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
156
-------
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
3. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 1994. Letter Regarding
Vapor Extraction System Decommissioning, Former
Intersil Facility, Cupertino, California. From Elizabeth
Jimison, Kenneth Johnson, and Ross Steenson. To Roshy
Mozafar, California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region. March 3.
4. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. and Levine-Fricke, Inc. 1995.
Five-Year Remedial Action Status Report and Effectiveness
Evaluation, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino, California.
Prepared for Intersil, Inc. and Siemens Components, Inc.
July 31.
5. EPA Region 9. No date. Intersil, Inc./Siemens
Components Fact Sheet. Internet document summarizing
the history and cleanup of the Intersil/Siemens Superfund
Site. .
6. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies Annual
Status Report (96 Annual Status Report). Detailed Site
Information. Intersil. September.
7. Susan Colman, Geomatrix Consultants. 1998. Comments
on Draft Cost and Performance Report. September 25.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was
provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract
No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
157
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
158
-------
Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at
NAS North Island, Site 9
159
-------
Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at
NAS North Island, Site 9
Site Name:
NAS North Island, Site 9
Location:
San Diego, CA
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
- Halogenated and non-halogenated
VOCs, including 1,2-
dichloroethene, trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, toluene
Period of Operation:
10/12/97 - 10/18/97 - startup
10/24/97 - 1/8/98 - parametric tests
1/17/98 - 2/6/98 - steady-state tests
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
Process Technologies Inc (PTI)
Additional Contacts:
I! Naval Facilities Engineering
Service
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4301
Technology:
Photolytic Destruction
- Fluidized bed concentration unit,
including an absorber, desorber,
and chilled-water condenser
- Photolytic destruction unit (PDU),
consisting of photolytic reactors
and a wet scrubber
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Disposal of liquid
chemical waste
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil vapor - estimated 1,151 Ibs of VOCs
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate the
effectiveness of PTI's photolytic
destruction units in treating VOC-
contaminated vapor from an SVE
system
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
The goal of the demonstration was to obtain cost and performance data on PTI's system and to make comparisons
to other treatment technologies demonstrated at the site. The objectives included determining the total average
destruction and removal efficiencies of the system, developing cost data for a 3000 scfrn PTI system, and
characterizing and quantifying secondary waste streams and residuals.
Results:
- The PTI system removed VOCs in the SVE off-gas to levels below the maximum allowable emissions of 25
ppmv. The average total ORE for VOCs was 95%.
- The report provides more detailed information comparing PTI's technology performance to other treatment
technologies.
Cost:
- The total demonstration cost was $93,726, including work plan, moblilization/demobilization, site work, liquids
collection and containment, treatment, monitoring, sampling and analysis, and residuals disposal. The report
included a detailed cost breakout.
- The estimated unit cost to treat the SVE off-gas at NAS North Island's Site 9, using a 3000 scfm system is
S3.77perlbofVOC.
160
-------
Photolytic Destruction Technology Demonstration at
NAS North Island, Site 9 (continued)
Description:
NAS North Island Site 9, the Chemical Disposal Area, was used for the disposal of liquid chemical wastes from
the 1940s to the 1970s. A wide range of contaminants were detected in soils at the site including VOCs, semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and metals. As part of a non-time-critical
removal action, an SVE system has been installed at the site hi Areas 1 and 3 to remove and treat VOCs. As part
of the Navy Environmental Leadership Program, PTI was selected to demonstrate their Photolytic Destruction
Technology for NAS North Island, Site 9 and to make comparisons with other commercially-available treatment
technologies. The PTI system was demonstrated with the existing SVE system at the site, specifically treating soil
vapor from Area 3 wells. The demonstration was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved parametric testing
to establish the optimal process configuration, and Phase 2 which involved Steady-State Testing using the system
configuration from Phase 1.
The PTI system consisted of a fluidized bed concentration unit and a PDU. The three main components of the
concentration unit were: an adsorber to develop a fluidized bed of adsorbent beads to extract organic vapors from
the SVE vapor stream; a desorber containing a steam-heated heat exchanger that warms the adsorbent to 300 °F
to evaporate the VOCs from the loaded adsorbent beads; and a chilled-water condenser to remove the water vapor
and non-halogenated organics from the concentrated vapor. The PDU consisted of two main components: two
photolytic reactors capable of treating up to 5 acfrn each of concentrated VOC vapor and a wet scrubber to
remove any trace amounts of acidic by-products from the photolytic reactor stream. The PTI system used for the
demonstration was designed to treat 500 scfrn of vapor from the SVE system (which was rated at 3000 scfm) and
to remove a minimum of 3.6 Ibs/hr of VOCs. The maximum flow rate during the demonstration was 440 scfrn
and the average amount of VOCs removed was 1.22 Ibs/hr. The results of the Steady-State operations showed an
average ORE for the PTI system of 95.44%, with the PDU alone achieving an overall DRE of 97%. In addition,
the PTI system was found to be relatively quick to install and was operational 89% of the time. As a result of the
demonstration, PTI recommended several design modifications to enhance system performance including
redesigning the weather seals in the concentration unit to prevent rainwater and humidity from entering the
adsorber, which was the primary operational problem encountered with this component during the demonstration.
In addition, PTI recommended evaluating the performance of different adsorbent materials to determine which
offers the most cost effective removal efficiencies. The report also presents detailed information on secondary
wastes and residuals generated during the demonstration as well as a detailed discussion of operational problems
encountered during the demonstration.
The total demonstration cost was $93,726, including work plan, mobilization/demobilization, site work, liquids
collection and containment, treatment, monitoring, sampling and analysis, and residuals disposal. The report
included a detailed cost breakout. The data from the demonstration were used to estimate the cost of
implementing a 3000 scfm PTI system at NAS North Island Site 9. The estimated unit cost for such a system was
$3.77 per Ib of VOC treated. According to PTI, the commercialization of the technology over the next few years
will lower the treatment costs further.
161
-------
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Demonstration Program Background
In July 1996, the Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) issued a Broad Agency
Announcement (BAA), Solicitation N47408-96-R-6342, for demonstrating a remediation
technology for environmental cleanup. The Navy's goal in issuing this BAA was to
demonstrate innovative technologies that are at the advanced development stage and are
ready for field implementation. Process Technologies' Incorporated (PTI) responded to the
BAA, which resulted in the selection of their Photolytic Destruction Technology for
demonstration at Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island Installation Restoration (IR) Site 9.
The goal of the demonstration was to obtain the necessary cost and performance data on the
PTI system demonstration at NAS North Island, Site 9, and make a comparison with other
commercially-available treatment technologies. This data will be compiled by the Naval
Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) and provided in a summary report to be
distributed within all of the Department of Defense (DoD). The two potential benefits to
PTI are potential immediate full-scale implementation at NAS North Island and potential
future use within the federal government at other sites with similar volatile organic
compound (VOC) air streams requiring treatment.
1.2 Site Description
Location
NAS North Island is located in southern San Diego County, across San Diego Bay from
the downtown area, on the northern end of Coronado. Twelve sites on NAS North Island
were identified as IR sites owing to their historical use as hazardous materials
generating and/or disposal sites. Site 9 is one of these IR sites.
For this demonstration, the PTI System was installed to interface with an existing Soil
Vapor Extraction and Treatment System (SVE&T). The SVE&T was installed at Site 9
in 1997, to remove and treat the contaminated soil vapor from Site 9's Area 1 and 3
SVE wells. PTI treated soil vapor from the Area 3 wells only. Figure 1-1 presents the
PTI System Locating Plan indicating the location of the PTI System as it relates to
SVE&T the facility.
Geology
The uppermost layer at Site 9 consists of approximately 100 feet of poorly graded fine
sand and silty sand with shell beds. Several layers of clay, clayey sand and silt exist
from approximately 35 feet below grade surface (bgs) to 150 feet bgs. The character of
the vadose zone, which is 8 to 10 feet thick, is suitable for soil Vapor extraction (SVE).
The shallow nature of the vadose zone at Site 9 required installation of horizontal SVE
wells to effectively capture VOCs in the vadose zone (OHM Remediation Services Corp.
(OHM) 1996).
162
-------
PTI MCC
PTI DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM
PHOTOLYTIC DESTRUCTION UNIT
4TH ST WEST
CONCENTRATOR UNIT"
SOLVENT STORAGE TANK
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING INJECTION BLOWER SKID-
EXISTING 480V PANEL, PTI POWER
AUXILIARY BLOWER
GAS BOOST BLOWER
BLOWER KO DRUM-
POWER CABLE ROUTE
CONNECTION
-BLOWER KO DRUM
— HAZARDOUS AREA EQUIPMENT PAD
— SVE GAS TO PTI SYSTEM
/-TREATED GAS TO OHM SYSTEM
• SVE PAD
NON HAZARDOUS AREA EQUIPMENT PAD
SVE PIPING LOCATED ALONG THIS LINE
PTI SYSTEM
LOCATING PLAN
FIGURE 1-1
163
-------
Chemicals of Concern
Five VOCs were found in vadose zone soil at Site 9 in concentrations that exceed the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX Industrial Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs). These are cis-l,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), 1,1-DCE,
tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl chloride (OHM 1996). For
the demonstration, compounds known to exist at concentrations >2ppmv were also
added to this list.
Table 1-1; Chemicals of Concern
Chemical Name
Octane2
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Concentration in SVE Vapor1
96.44
31.40
27.60
22.20
14.20
N.D.
N.D.
Notes
1. Average SVE vapor concentration, as measured during Steady-State Operations, by EPA
Method TO-14.
2. The concentration of Octane was calculated using the equation:
ConcentrationQctane = [(Total Vapor Concentration by FID) - (Total Vapor Concentration by
TO-14) - (Methane Concentration)] -f- 8.
Site History
Site 9, the Chemical Waste Disposal Area, includes a low-lying depressed area in the
northeastern corner that was used for liquid chemical waste disposal beginning in the
1940s (OHM 1996). Disposal in this area was halted when it became apparent that
mixing of wastes was generating chemical reactions that caused fires. Part of the
depression was excavated and back-filled with clean, compacted fill for construction of
the aircraft run-up pad and taxi-way in 1974. The remainder was filled in with soil and
concrete rubble in 1978 (OHM 1996).
Beginning in 1968, wastes were segregated into four parallel trenches near the eastern
edge of Site 9. The trenches received solvents, caustics, acids, and Sermetel W (a semi-
synthetic high-temperature coating of ceramic and metallic compounds consisting of
metallic carbides). Disposal of wastes in the trenches ended in the mid-1970s when
installation of an Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP) was completed. The
southeast corner of Site 9, extending to the fence line which houses the Naval Weapons
Center (NWC), was used intermittently for liquid waste disposal from the 1950s to 1978
(OHM 1996).
In general, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons,
metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected in soils at the Site 9
disposal areas (OHM 1996).
164
-------
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action (NTCRA)
Presently, a Npn-Time-Critical Removal Action is in place at Site 9 to remove VOCs
from vadose zone soil. The NTCRA work at Site 9 consists of the following, and is
described in more detail in Section 2.3:
• Extraction of VOCs from soil by S VE. A series of horizontal S VE wells and air
injection wells have been installed in Areas 1 and 3.
• Treatment of extracted soil vapor by vapor phase activated carbon adsorption.
1.3 Demonstration Objectives
This demonstration was performed to obtain the relevant data needed for Navy project
managers, and other decision makers, to evaluate the PTI system's applicability for a
project while reducing cost on the project. The PTI technology will be compared with all
other emerging and commercially available technologies so remedial project managers
(RPMs) can make the optimum business decisions for the Navy and other DoD.
The objectives of this demonstration were as follows:
1. Determine the total average DRE achieved by the PTI system for all VOCs measured
in the SVE off-gas, as well as individual DREs for critical VOCs.
2. Develop treatment cost data for a 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) PTI
system, designed to achieve the DREs measured above, for VOC-contaminated soil
vapor similar to those at Site 9.
3. Characterize and quantify secondary waste streams generated by the PTI system at
Site 9 and determine the appropriate disposal option(s) for each. Estimate the costs
of disposal of all secondary waste streams generated.
4. Characterize and quantify all residuals, including hydrochloric acid, chlorine,
phosgene, carbon monoxide and dioxins, exiting the PTI system.
5. Document observed operating problems and their solutions.
6. Disseminate the results of the demonstration throughout the DoD, DOE, private
industry, state regulatory agencies and the NAS North Island RAB.
165
-------
Section 2.0 Technology Description
PTI's VOC treatment system consists of a fluidized bed concentration unit and a
photolytic destruction unit (PDU). The concentration unit produces a low flow, high
concentration VOC vapor that is then processed through the PDU. For most treatment
or recovery technologies, it is desirable for the unit to receive a low cubic feet per
minute (cfm) flow with high levels of VOCs, rather than the high flow and dilute VOCs
typically found. The concentration unit can pre-concentrate organics up to 1,000 times
while correspondingly decreasing the cfm flow.
The concentration unit includes a chilled-water condenser to preferentially remove non-
chlorinated hydrocarbons from the vent gas prior to treatment in the photolytic
destruction unit. The PDU is most cost-effective when treating high concentration
vapors containing chlorinated hydrocarbons. PTI has combined the two technologies to
provide a system that can treat a variety of contaminated VOC vapor streams. Figure 2-1
is a simplified schematic diagram of the PTI System. A detailed description of the
technology as it was demonstrated at Site 9 is presented below.
2.1 Concentration Unit
The Concentration Unit consists of three major components: an adsorber, desorber and
condenser. The following is a description of each component and its basic unit operations:
Adsorber
The adsorber develops a fluidized bed of adsorbent beads to extract organic vapors from
the SVE vapor. The adsorbent beads are specifically designed to extract VOCs from high
humidity gas streams. The adsorber has multiple stages of adsorption trays to control the
flow of adsorbent beads. As the beads flow from one tray to the next, they adsorb the
VOCs from the gas stream, in a process referred to as "loading". Fluidization of the
adsorbent media bed enhances the kinetics and improves the capture rate. On a static bed,
a small break between carbon pieces will allow the gas flow to select the path of least
resistance and much of the flow will pass without adsorption. The constant movement of
the media allows for all portions of the adsorbent to be utilized.
The adsorber is operated under a slight negative pressure so that SVE vapors can be
drawn into the adsorber. A manually operated flow control system is used to bring 250
scfm of SVE vapors into the unit. As noted earlier, the SVE flow rate is adjusted based
on the actual VOC concentrations that are experienced during operation. Additional
ambient air (trim air) is mixed with the SVE vapor before entering the adsorber. A
manually operated flow control system is used to draw a minimum of 400 scfm of
combined gas flow into the unit.
166
-------
TREATED VATER FTJR BOILER
HAKE UP FROM STEAM
GENERATING SKID
CLEANED VAPORS
v^
SVE KANIFQLD BY DHH REMEDIATION CORP
AIR WATER SEPARATOR
SVE DRAINAGE TO
DUSTING VASTEUATER
SYSTEM
DESQRBER.
CONDENSER
PHQTDLYTIC
. DESTRUCTION
UNIT
\
BLOCK FLDW DIAGRAM
PTI SYSTEM
FIGURE g-1
167
-------
The combined gas flow moves upward through multiple stages of trays to contact the
adsorbent media used to adsorb VOCs from the gas stream. The adsorbent beads flow
downward through the unit (tray-to-tray) while the gas flows upward at sufficient
velocity to fluidize each stage of adsorbent media. This allows intimate and thorough
contact of the gas with the adsorbent. The treated gas passes through an internal screen
prior to its return to the existing SVE piping at a point down-stream from the tie-in.
The internal screen ensures that the adsorbent beads are retained within the adsorber.
Desorber
The Desorber evaporates the VOCs from the loaded adsorbent beads. High-pressure
steam (60 psig) provides energy through a heat exchanger to desorb the organics from
the adsorbent beads. A low pressure steam (atmospheric pressure) is used as the carrier
vapor to sweep the desorbed organic vapors from the desorber. The desorbed "lean"
adsorbent beads are then immediately recycled to the adsorber, to begin another cycle.
The "loaded" adsorbent beads are pneumatically transferred from the bottom of the
adsorber to the top of the desorber. The adsorbent beads flow downward in a plug-flow
manner. The desorber contains a steam-heated heat exchanger that warms the adsorbent
to 300o F. This heat vaporizes the adsorbed VOCs. Low pressure, superheated steam is
used to sweep the desorbed VOCs out of the desorber and into the condenser. The "lean"
adsorbent is pneumatically recycled to the top of the adsorber for reuse. This provides
for the continuous, closed-loop operation of the adsorbent beads through the concentrator
system.
A small electrically-heated boiler was used to generate steam for the desorber and provide
the low pressure sweep steam. Make-up water for the steam generator was provided from
the existing SVE&T Steam Generating Skid, and boiler blowdown was drained to an
existing wastewater sump located adjacent to the SVE&T Steam Generating Skid.
Condenser
The condenser is cooled with chilled water to preferentially remove the water vapor and
non-halogenated organics in the concentrated sweep vapor. A portion of the halogenated
chemicals is also removed in the condenser. The condenser temperature can be controlled
with a thermostat to achieve the desired condensing conditions. During the first few weeks
of operation, evaluations were made to determine the preferred operating temperature for
the condenser. A chilled water system is used for the condenser. Heat is rejected from the
refrigeration unit using an air-cooled heat exchanger. Condensate was collected in a "day"
tank and then transferred to the existing gravity separator located on the SVE&T wet-end
skid. The day tank was sampled prior to transfer of the SVE&T gravity separator.
2.2 Photolytic Destruction Unit (PDU)
The PDU, located between the condenser and the recycle line to the adsorber, processes
the non-condensable vapors from the condenser. The PDU consists of tow major
components: the photolytic reactors and a wet scrubber. A description of each
component and its basic unit operations is discussed below:
168
-------
Photolytic Reactors
Two photolytic reactors, each capable of treating up to 5 scfm of concentrated,
contaminated vapor were included with the system. Non-condensable vapors from the
condenser flow into the PDU. The non-condensable vapors are mixed with ambient air
prior to entering the PDU to control the vapors to less than 20% of the lower explosive
limit (LEL) for the gas mixture. This adjustment is made manually, based on analytical
test results.
The mixture of VOC-laden vapor and ambient air passes through the photolytic reactors,
where the vapors are exposed to high levels of photons produced by ultraviolet (UV)
lamps. The VOCs break into free radicals which react with the alkaline compounds
contained in the reagent panels. This reaction works to prevent the formation of
undesirable by-products in the process exhaust stream. The reagent panels are located
adjacent to the UV lamps.
When the reagent panels are exhausted (fully utilized), acid gases from the reactors will
be predominantly reacted in the Wet Scrubber system. The pH of the scrubber solution
is reduced as high loadings of acid gas are processed. A rapid drop in the scrubber
solution pH is an indicator that the reagent panels need to be replaced. During the
demonstration, two sets of reagent panels were used. At the completion of the
technology demonstration, the reagent panels were tested using the EPA Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to verify that the panels could be disposed as
sanitary rather than hazardous waste.
To control the temperature inside the reactors, a closed-loop cooling water system provides
cooling water to plate-type heat exchangers that are located between the reagent panels.
Heat energy from the lamps, and heat of reaction from the neutralization reactions, are
removed via the internal heat exchangers. The closed-loop cooling system circulates the
water from the heat exchangers through a radiator system where air rejects the heat to
atmosphere. The cooling system has two pumps, one operating and one backup.
Wet Scrubber
The VOC-free gas from the photolytic reactors flows through a caustic scrubber system
to remove any trace amounts of hydrogen chloride, or other acidic by-products that are
not reacted with the reagent panels. The scrubbing system operates with a 5% caustic
soda solution as the reagent. Two pumps are provided with the system, one operating
and one backup.
The clean, scrubbed gas flows back to the inlet of the Concentration Unit. An
emergency by-pass system is included so the cleaned and scrubbed gas can be processed
through a canister of activated carbon prior to recycle to the adsorber outlet in the event
that the Concentration Unit trips off-line.
Prior to disposal, the spent scrubber solution is pumped out of the scrubber recycle tank,
through an activated carbon canister, and into a 55 gallon drum. Samples of the solution
169
-------
in the drum were analyzed for comparison with the site discharge permit requirements.
This analysis proved the water could be drained into the site sanitary sewer system.
The PTI System is capable of being operated in three different process configurations.
They are:
Configuration-1: Concentration-Condensation-Photolytic Destruction
Configuration-2: Concentration- Condensation
Configuration-3: Concentration- Photolytic Destruction
Each of these process flow configurations was evaluated during this technology
demonstration. Refer to "Process Technologies Incorporated Technology
Demonstration Final Work Plan" (Work Plan) for additional information regarding the
process flow configurations that were evaluated.
2.3 PTI and SVE System Interface
For this demonstration, the PTI System was installed to interface with an existing
SVE&T. The SVE&T was installed at Site 9 in 1997, to remove and treat the
contaminated soil vapor. Figure 1-1 presents the PTI System Locating Plan indicating
the location of the PTI System as it relates to the SVE&T facility.
The SVE vapor is drawn from the wells by SVE blowers located at the treatment
facility. The SVE&T System is rated at 3,000 scfm of vapor flow. VOCs are removed
from the SVE vapor using a regenerative vapor phase activated carbon (VPAC) system.
The SVE&T System consists of six equipment skids: the SVE System Skid, VPAC
System Skid, Wet-End Skid, Steam Generating Skid, Injection Blower Skid, and
Cooling Water Skid. The PTI System pulled SVE vapors from, and re-injected treated
gas to, the SVE System Skid.
The PTI System used for this demonstration was designed to treat 500 scfm of SVE
vapor, and to remove a minimum of 3.6 pounds per hour (Ibs/hr) of VOCs. During the
operation of the system it was determined that the maximum flow rate that could be
treated was actually 440 scfm. The average composition of the SVE vapor from the
Area 3 wells was calculated to be 191.84 ppmv of VOCs. This is equivalent to
approximately 1.22 Ibs/hr of VOCs at the 500 scfm design rate, which is approximately
one-third the projected VOC removal capability of the PTI System used for this
demonstration.
The SVE vapor was drawn from the Area 3 SVE piping from a nozzle located on the
SVE well manifold piping. OHM installed the manifold system, complete with a
diversion valve and isolation block valves. Figure 2-1 identifies the approximate tie-in
point, and schematically shows the major process operations associated with the PTI
System. PTI installed a booster blower to draw the SVE vapors into the PTI System.
The booster blower was equipped with an air/water separator to remove any free
170
-------
moisture from the SVE vapor. Water collected in the separator was drained to the
existing OHM Wet End system.
After treatment through the PTI System, the treated gas was returned to the manifold
piping for subsequent processing through the existing VPAC System. In addition to the
booster blower, PTI also provided an auxiliary blower for the treated gas leaving the
PTI system. This blower was used when the SVE&T blower systems were inoperative
to allow the PTI technology to continue to operate.
2.4 Technology Applicability
Photolytic destruction has been demonstrated to destroy VOCs in SVE and chemical
storage tank vents off-gas. Off-gas streams from air strippers, air spargers and process
vent streams are other likely applications for the technology. Pilot and commercial-
scale work has shown that photolytic destruction is best suited for destroying low-flow,
high concentration gas streams containing halogenated VOCs. For the treatment of high
flow, dilute gas streams, a concentrator is used as a pretreatment method, prior to
destruction by photolytic destruction. The Concentration Unit has been installed and in
use in Europe for the control of VOC emissions from paint spray booth and fiberglass
reinforced plastics operations. This demonstration was the first commercial
demonstration of the PDU and Concentration Unit in the United States.
2.5 Commercialization and Intellectual Property
The photolytic destruction technology is manufactured and sold as PDUs by PTI. The
PDUs are protected by 5 U.S. and 2 international patents. The concentrator technology
is manufactured and sold by PTI under license to MIAB, an air pollution control
equipment manufacturer located in MOlnbacka, Sweden.
2.6 Competing Technologies
The PTI system competes with conventional VOC treatment technologies such as
activated carbon and flameless thermal oxidation.
2.7 Technology Maturity
Photolytic destruction is an innovative air treatment technology, although variations
have been applied for the treatment of contaminated water. The technology, together
with the concentrator, is being implemented on a commercial scale for the treatment of
air stripper off-gas and other SVE sites. The Concentration Unit has been in use in
Europe since 1990.
171
-------
Section 3.0 Experience And Findings Of The Demonstration
Below is a summary table listing the order and dates of major events completed during
the demonstration.
Table 3-1. Schedule of Project Activities
Activity
Date(s)
Contract Award
July 31, 1997
Kick-Off Meeting
August 15, 1997
Work Plan Development
August 16 -Octobers, 1997
Mobilization
October 7-11, 1997
Installation
October 11, 1997
Startup
October 12 - October 18, 1997
Parametric Tests
October 24, 1997 - January 8, 1998
Steady-State Tests
January 17 - February 6, 1998
Demobilization
February 7 - February 12, 1998
3.1 PTI System Mobilization and Installation
Prior to initiating the on-site work, the PTI system was pre-assembled and tested to
verify mechanical, electrical and instrumentation integrity. This testing was performed
at PTI's facility in Boise, Idaho. The U.S. Navy's Project Manager and Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) were on hand to witness a portion of the
pre-mobilization testing.
Prior to mobilizing the PTI system to Site 9, PTI personnel together with assistance
from OHM site personnel, performed various on-site mobilization activities. These
activities were performed several days in advance of shipping the PTI System. They
included:
• Preparation of an area of approximately 20' wide by 50' long to receive the PTI
System, the Booster Blower and Auxiliary Blower Modules.
• Installation of tie-in connections for the field-run piping for the boiler feed water,
SVE vapor inlet piping, treated vapor outlet piping, potable water, and condensate
transfer piping. Since this was a temporary facility, piping runs were all above
ground and were anchored onto cribbing supports. Walk-over stiles were placed
where appropriate to prevent tripping hazards.
• Installation of conduit and wiring from an existing 480 volt, 200 amp electrical
service, adjacent to the Injection Blower Skid, to the PTI System (see Figure 1-1).
172
-------
The PTI equipment was delivered to the site, on October 11, 1997, in the form of
modules that were interconnected with field-run piping, and electrical and
instrumentation wiring. The equipment modules consisted of:
• Concentrator Unit Trailer Module (adsorber, desorber, fan, pneumatic transfer
system, condenser, refrigeration unit, boiler unit, and all associated electrical
equipment and controls - see Figure 3-1).
• Solvent Storage Tank Module (skid-mounted condensate storage tank and pump).
• The PDU Container Module (all of the PDU process equipment pre-piped, pre-wired
and pre-instrumented. This module also contained the motor control center and the
programmable logic control (PLC) system common to all of the modules. A small
work office was also included in the PDU Module - see Figure 3-2).
• SVE Booster Blower Module (booster blower, water knockout, motor starter, and
instrumentation/control s).
• Auxiliary Blower Module (auxiliary blower, pre-filter, motor starter, and
instrumentation/controls).
The PTI System was installed adjacent to the southwest section of the security fencing
surrounding the SVE&T system. Figure 1-1 identifies the location of the PTI System
installation at the SVE&T facility. A crane was used for positioning of the equipment at
the proper location. All of the PTI System modules were placed on cribbing as the
primary support for the units. Grounding rods were placed at appropriate locations and
grounding wires were provided to ensure the safe operation of the System. Installation
of the equipment was completed in one day.
3.2 PTI System Start-Up
A mechanical check-out of the PTI system commenced on October 12th, after completion
of installation activities. During this phase of the demonstration, the following start-up
activities were completed:
• Field-run piping and electrical inter-ties to connect the existing SVE&T modules and
SVE manifold piping to the PTI System modules.
• Performed system integrity checks (mechanical, piping, electrical, and instrumentation).
• Verified operation of SVE booster and auxiliary blowers.
• Loaded adsorbent beads into adsorber and desorber.
• Loaded reagent panels in PDU reactors.
• Performed mechanical start-up of the Concentrator Unit.
• Modified PDU inlet gas piping to accept dilution air.
PTI began processing SVE vapors from the Area 3 well piping beginning October 18th.
173
-------
CDNDENSATE RETURN
CONCENTRATOR ID FAN
PLAN VIEW
TRANSFORMER
CDNCENTRATDR UNIT
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE g-g
174
-------
CL DF DOOR CTYP>-
11
x I—1
- SCRUBBER TANK
CAUSTIC HAKE UP SYSTEM •
GAS PHASE ACTIVATED CARBON -
AIR COMPRESSOR •
3'-Or DDOR
PLAN VIEW
QQQ
T / WATER COOLER
CODLING WATER PUMPS—* £—SCRUBBER PUMPS
CAS PHASE ACTIVATED CARBON-
ELEVATIDN VIEW
PHPTDLYTIC DESTRUCTIDN UNIT
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE 2-3
175
-------
3.3 PTI System Operation
The PTI technology demonstration was performed in two phases. Phase 1 involved
Parametric Testing to establish the optimal process configuration for Site 9 conditions.
Once established, this configuration was implemented for Phase 2 of the demonstration,
Steady-State Testing.
Parametric Tests (October 24,1997 through January 8, 1998)
Phase 1 consisted of Parametric Testing, which involved varying the feed gas flow from
the SVE system and the condenser temperature. Three process configurations, discussed
in detail below, were evaluated during the Parametric Testing. During this period the
PTI System processed SVE off-gas for a total of 378 hours. Between tests, the system
was shutdown to make the necessary process changes to perform the next series of tests.
Because of this intermittent operation of the system, an on-line availability rating was
not calculated for the Parametric Tests. The results of the Parametric Tests are
discussed below:
Configuration 1: Concentration-Condensation-Photolytic Destruction
Process Configuration-1 involved the use of all of the PTI System components. In this
mode of operation, low boiling, non-condensable organics that do not condense in the
condenser unit, are processed through the PDU.
Table 3-2 presents the operational parameters and performance results achieved during
Configuration-1 tests. The VOC concentration data was collected and recorded using an
on-line FID. The use of an on-line, continuous monitoring system allowed PTI to
readily observe the effect of making system changes on performance. Note that Test 1-
1, involving an SVE flow rate of 100 cfm, was not performed per the Work Plan, as it
was not possible to operate the SVE Booster Blower at a flow-rate less than 150 cfm.
Table 3-2. Configuration 1 Parametric Test Results
Process Parameters
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
Average DRE (%)
Test
1-2
151
306
69
279
188
32.62
Test
1-3
209
290
67
309
86
72.17
Test
1-4
245
223
59
366
. 127
65.30
Test
1-5
290
160
52
1,367
513
62.47
Test
1-6
259
111
60
1,453
463
68.13
ote: 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID.
176
-------
The system was shutdown after completion of Test 1 -6 to make the following
modifications to the concentrator with the intention of improving system removal
efficiencies:
• Replaced the flapper/check valve that controls the flow of adsorbent beads into the
top of the desorber. Because the original valve was not sealing well, it was believed
that concentrated VOCs could be discharged to the top adsorber tray, and vented to
the VPAC System.
• Installed taller weir plates in the adsorber to allow for a thicker layer of beads to
form on each adsorption tray.
• Replaced the desorber downcomer tubes with smaller diameter tubes to increase the
Adsorbent beads residence time in the desorber.
• Increased desorption temperature by 20 °F, to approximately 285 °F, to increase the
removal of solvent from the adsorbent beads.
• Increased vacuum pressure in desorber from -0.3 mm to -0.5mm to increase the
solvent desorption rate, and ensure that no solvent vapors could be allowed to vent
back to the adsorber.
• Added additional adsorbent beads to the Concentrator Unit.
After making the above modifications, the system was restarted and tests 1-4 through 1-
6 were repeated. The results of these tests are presented in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Configuration 1A Parametric Test Results
Process Parameters
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
Average DRE (%)
Test
l-4a
265
149
62
928
55
94.07
Test
l-5a
267
130
52
1,009
112
88.90
Test
l-6a
266
133
69
1,022
265
74.07
Note: 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID
It was evident, based on the higher DREs achieved during Configuration 1A Tests, that
the System mechanical and operational changes were very effective. The lower
"Average DRE %" achieved during Test 1-6A is related to the condenser temperature.
At high condenser temperatures, less VOCs are condensed, thereby causing a greater
recycle load of VOCs to return to the adsorber. A high recycle load of VOCs can
"overload" the adsorber, thereby reducing process removal efficiencies.
177
-------
Configuration 2 Test: Concentration-Condensation (No PDU)
Process Configuration-2 eliminates the use of the PDU to destroy the low boiling
organic compounds. Rather, the VOCs are condensed into a liquid for off-site disposal.
Any non-condensable vapors are recycled to the inlet of the adsorber. The results
achieved during this series of tests, illustrated in Table 3-4, as evidenced by the lower
"Average DRE %", show an increase in the recycle load of VOCs into the adsorber,
leading to break-through of the chemicals into the adsorber outlet. PTI believes that
higher "Average DRE %s" might have been achieved if tests were run at lower
condenser temperatures. Operating the condenser at lower temperatures would have
decreased the re-circulation load of low boiling point compounds to the adsorber.
Table 3-4. Configuration 2 Parametric Test Results
Process Parameters
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
Average DRE (%)
Test
2-2
148
169
80
966
582
39.75
Test
2-3
211
210
66
337
115
65.88
Test
2-4
258
68
78
1,427
414
70.99
Test
2-5
262
141
50
1,860
551
70.38
Test
2-6
215
124
67
1,110
433
60.99
Note: 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID
Configuration 3 Test: Concentration- PDU (No Condensation)
Process Configuration-3 eliminates the use of the condenser and instead, all of the
concentrated organic vapors are processed through the PDU. In this mode of operation,
air rather than steam was used to sweep the concentrated vapors from the desorber. In
order to operate the unit safely, the concentration of organic vapors was limited to levels
that do not exceed 20% of the LEL.
Table 3-5 presents the operational parameters and performance results achieved during
Configuration-3 tests. The lower than expected level of VOCs in the SVE off-gas
enabled PTI to run Test 3-1 at a much higher SVE flow rate than originally designed.
No further Configuration-3 tests were conducted because it was felt that no
improvement over Configuration-1 test results would be achieved in this operational
mode. Therefore, the System was shut-down to prepare for Steady-State Operation.
178
-------
Table 3-5. Configuration 3 Parametric Test Results
•' V - - :-; Process Paranielers •: '•^W;:-
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
Average DRE (%)
'• jTest!;3-l^
215
200
NA
1,443
480
66.74
Note: 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID.
Upon review of the Parametric Test data, it was determined that the optimal operation
parameters for long-term operation at Site 9 would be those which mimicked Test l-4a.
During this test, the System achieved the highest DRE (91.79%), using a higher condenser
temperature (62° F), than other tests run at or near an average SVE flow rate of 265 scfm.
Steady-State Operation (January 17,1998, through February 6, 1998)
After completion of the Parametric Tests, the System was shutdown to prepare for
Steady-State operation. During this shutdown the following work was performed:
• Installed software in the PLC to record the inlet and outlet FID measurements 24-
hours per day.
• Installed a kilowatt meter to monitor system power consumption.
• Installed a water meter to monitor water consumption by the steam boiler (the PDU
cooling water and condenser chiller water systems are self-contained and require
little make-up water).
• Added adsorbent media to the Concentration Unit to replace any adsorbent beads lost
to attrition during the Parametric Tests.
• Replaced the reagent panels with new panels. A sample was taken and sent to an
independent laboratory for analysis.
• Repaired a number of small leaks observed in the condenser.
• Installed an eductor system to transport the adsorbent beads from the adsorber to the
desorber. A positive pressure transport system, rather than the original negative
pressure system, was used to prevent the plugging of adsorbent beads at the desorber
inlet flapper valve.
Steady-State Operation began on January 17, 1998, and was completed on February 6,
1998. During this phase of testing, the System was operated 24-hours per day, 7-days
per week, except during process shutdowns and holidays. The unit operated unattended
during normal off-hours, weekends, and during weapons loading activities. The PTI
System operated for a total of 440 hours during this period, and achieved an 89% on-
line availability.
179
-------
During the second week of Steady-State Operation, the decision was made to switch
from using hot-air desorption to steam desorption. It was determined from the
analytical test results that using steam desorption resulted in a higher removal
efficiency. PTI chose to continue the use of steam as a desorption gas for the remainder
of the demonstration. A summary of system performance during this period is provided
in Tables 3-6 and 3-7.
Table 3-6. Steady-State Test Results - Hot Air Desorption
Note
Process Parameters
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
DRE
Low
239
57
80
890
83
80.90
High
267
157
90
1,175
170
92.94
Average
245
100
83
995
125
87.37
1 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID.
Table 3-7. Steady-State Test Results - Steam Desorption
Process Parameters
SVE Flow (scfm)
Make-up Air (scfm)
Condenser Temperature (°F)
Inlet Concentration (ppmc)1
Outlet Concentration (ppmc)
DRE
'•'•-••' .:;:Low',:;:; v;-:
243
51
88
1,010
14
91.85
High
307
102
110
1,141
93
96.76
Average
267
76
96
1,056
44
95.93
Note: 1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID.
3.4 Demobilization
After completion of the Phase 2 Steady-State Tests, the System was decontaminated and
decommissioned. The decontamination work was performed in two steps. First, the
Concentrator Unit was operated, using ambient air only, in a recycle mode to remove
organics retained in the adsorbent beads. The organics were treated with the PDUs.
After the adsorbent was regenerated, the system was taken off-line and disassembled.
Mechanical equipment that had been exposed to contamination was cleaned in
conformance with the procedures defined in the Health and Safety Plan (Work Plan).
Decontamination materials were also disposed in conformance with the Health and
Safety Plan.
180
-------
The reagent panels were composite sampled during removal from each of the PDUs. The
sample was subjected to TCLP testing. The results of the tests, proved the panels to be
safe for landfill disposal. Originally, PTI had planned to dispose of the panels in the
Miramar Landfill, however this landfill's disposal application requirements were such
that demobilization would have been delayed. As PTI had committed the use of the
equipment for another project, it chose to have the panels shipped to its facility in
Boise, Idaho, where the panels were disposed.
The liquid condensate collected during the demonstration was pumped into 55-gallon
liquid storage; containers and stored on the OHM Hazardous Waste Pad. Each of the
containers were labeled as follows: "Solvent Condensate, Analysis Pending, Generated on
February 12tn, 1998". The condensate was sampled by PTI and analyzed for VOCs as per
the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The results of the analysis showed the
composition of the condensate to be similar to that collected by the OHM treatment
system. The condensate was then combined with the OHM solvent for disposal.
The scrubber liquid was treated with liquid-phase granular activated carbon and analyzed
as per the QAPP. The results of the testing showed the liquid to be safe for disposal in
the OHM sump, for discharge to the base sanitary sewer system.
Similarly, the chiller water, cooling water and boiler blowdown were all discharged to
the OHM sump, for discharge to the base sanitary sewer system.
3.5 System Performance
This section discusses the test results with respect to the objectives of the demonstration.
Objective 1. Determine the total average DRE achieved by the PTI System for all
VOCs measured in the SVE off-gas, as well as individual DREs for critical VOCs.
The determination of the total VOC removal efficiency for the PTI System was to be
calculated by inputting the process inlet and outlet VOC concentrations, as measured
with EPA Method TO-12, into the following equation: (TO-12inlet-TO-12outlet)/TO-12inlet.
However, a review of the analytical results show that the TO-12 analysis does not
account for all VOCs in the SVE gas stream. This is manifested by comparing the VOC
concentration as measured by the on-line FID, with that measured by EPA Method TO-
12. The FID method has the advantage of pulling the gas sample through a heated line
directly to the internal GC. The use of a heated line prevents the condensation, or "drop
out", of any compounds with high boiling points. EPA Method TO-12, on the other
hand, requires the capture of the sample gas in a summa canister. When the summa
canister has been received by the analytical lab, it is pressurized to 10 psig to remove the
volatile constituents. Unfortunately, the heavier weight compounds remain in the
canister. For this reason, PTI chose to use the on-line FID reading to measure total VOC
removal efficiency. The results of the total VOC removal calculations, presented in
Table 3-8, shows an average System DRE of 95.44%, during Steady-State Operations,
and using steam as the desorption gas in the Concentration Unit.
181
-------
Table 3-8. PTI System Average Total VOC Removal Efficiency
Date
1/19/98
1/22/98
1/26/98
1/30/98
2/4/98
2/5/98
2/5/98
2/6/98
Average
Desorption
Method
hot air
hot air
steam
steam
steam
steam
steam
steam
Inlet Cone.1
(ppmc)
890
920
1,175
1,141
1,090
1,020
1,020
1,010
1,033
Outlet Cone.1
(ppmc)
170
124
83
93
49
33
14
31
75
DRE
(%)
80.90
86.52
92.94
91.85
95.50
96.76
98.63
96.93
92.502
Notes:
1. VOC concentration as measured by an on-line FID.
2. Average system DRE using steam desorption was 95.93%.
Individual DREs for the critical VOCs were determined by TO-14 analysis. The critical
VOCs were selected from a composite list of chemicals from recent sampling events at
Site 9, Area 3. Critical VOCs are defined as those which were present in the composite
data at levels > 2 ppmv. Table 3-9 presents the individual DREs for each of the critical
VOCs.
Table 3-9. Individual VOC Removal Efficiencies for Critical Compounds
Compound Name
As Octane2
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Totals
Inlet
Cone.1 Mass Rate
(ppmv) (lbs/hr)
96.44 0.5831
31.40 0.2703
27.60 0.1895
22.20 0.1129
14.20 0.0679
ND3 0.0000
ND 0.0000
191.84 1.2238
Outlet
Cone. Mass Rate
(ppmv) (lbs/hr)
0.06 0.0004
2.44 0.0278
4.02 0.0363
4.40 0.0294
0.74 0.0047
ND 0.0000
ND 0.0000
11.65 0.0986
Average
DRE
(%)
99.92
89.72
80.83
73.98
93.13
NA4
NA
91.94
Notes:
1. Compound concentrations as measured by EPA Method TO-14.
2. The concentration of Octane was calculated as: [(Total VOC concentration by FID) - (Total
VOC concentration by TO-14) - (Methane concentration)] H- 8.
3. "ND" denotes the concentration was below the detection limit of the analytical equipment.
4. "NA" denotes not applicable as the compound was not detected in the SVE vapor.
182
-------
The destruction and removal efficiency of the PDUs was calculated separately by
measuring the VOC concentrations at the inlet and outlet to the PDU System. The results
of these calculations, presented in Table 3-10, show an average PDU DRE of 97.29%.
Table 3-10. PDU Average Total and Individual VOC Removal Efficiencies
Compound Name1
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Totals
Inlet
Cone. Mass Rate
(ppmv) (Ibs/hr)
742.86 0.0623
12.00 0.0013
688.57 0.0799
205.86 0.0172
334.29 0.0501
2.80 0.0003
11.60 0.0012
4.50 0.0005
2,002.47 0.2128
Outlet
Cone. Mass Rate
(ppmv) (Ibs/hr)
8.11 0.0007
0.08 0.0000
17.70 0.0022
11.62 0.0010
11.79 0.0018
0.10 0.0000
0.44 0.0000
ND 0.0000
49.82 0.0058
Average
DRE
(%)
98.85
99.27
97.29
94.18
96.36
96.21
95.89
>92.22
>97.27
Note: 1. Only those compounds measured at
compounds were measured at the PDU outlet,
limits were not measured at the PDU inlet.
the PDU inlet are included. Several additional
but because of the large difference in reporting
Objective 3. Characterize and quantify secondary waste streams generated by the
PTI system at Site 9 and determine the appropriate disposal option(s) for each.
Estimate the costs of disposal of all secondary waste streams generated.
The secondary waste streams produced from the PTI system included: spent reagent
panels from the PDUs, scrubber blowdown, and liquid condensate from the condenser.
Each of these waste sources was monitored throughout the demonstration. A brief
discussion of the evaluation methods used for secondary waste streams from each sub-
system is given below:
Reagent Panels
The reagent panels are used to capture and transform acidic radicals, formed by photo-
dissociation of halogenated compounds, into stable, inert organic salts. One set each of
fresh panels were installed in the PDU reactors for Phase 1 and Phase 2 tests. At the
completion of the demonstration, samples taken from the spent reagent panels were
analyzed according to the TCLP test method. The results of these analyses demonstrate
that the panels were non-hazardous waste. The total weight of reagent used in the
demonstration was approximately 960 Ibs, over a period of 1,229 hours. The
approximate cost of the panels consumed during the demonstration was $700.00. Due to
strict time limitations, PTI chose to landfill the waste in Boise, Idaho, rather than in the
Miramar landfill.
183
-------
Scrubber Blowdown
The PTI system includes a small (25 scfm) acid gas scrubber which operates in a batch
mode. The aqueous scrubber discharge was tested to determine whether the waste meets
the NAS North Island sanitary sewer acceptance criteria. The scrubber blowdown was
analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260A. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and total
suspended solids (TSS) were determined by methods 160.1 and 160.2, respectively; and
pH was determined with the pH probe in the scrubber unit. The results of these analyses
show that the liquid met the discharge requirements. The total vblurne of liquid
discharged at the completion of the demonstration was 18.5 gallons. The approximate
cost of the caustic chemicals used in the scrubber during the demonstration was $62.00.
Liquid Condensate
The PTI system utilizes a water-cooled condenser to preferentially remove non-
chlorinated hydrocarbons from the concentrated gas stream, prior to treatment in the
PDUs. This condensate was sampled and analyzed for disposal purposes using EPA
Method 8260A. As the sample analysis confirmed, the composition of the condensate
was found to be typical of the current S VE&T operation. Therefore, the condensate was
pumped to the SVE&T wet-end skid. Approximately 255 gallons of condensate were
collected during the demonstration. The estimated cost to dispose of the liquid
condensate, at $0.17/lb., was $347.00.
Objective 4. Characterize and quantify all residuals, including hydrochloric acid
(HC1), ozone, chlorine, phosgene, carbon monoxide and dioxins, exiting the PTI
system.
The concentrations of HC1, chlorine, phosgene and carbon monoxide were measured at
the PDU outlet and the PTI system outlet. Ozone analysis was not performed due to an
oversight by PTI. Dioxin analysis was not performed as no PCB-indicating compounds
were measured in the SVE off-gas.
HC1 and Chlorine
Sampling and analysis for HC1 and chlorine was performed using EPA Method 26A.
Gas samples were taken at the outlet of the PDU scrubber and at the outlet of the
adsorber, the total system outlet. HC1 was measured at a concentration of 22.1 ppbv
(PDU scrubber outlet) and 0.18 ppbv (System outlet), while chlorine was measured at a
concentration of 7.4 ppbv and 0.04 ppbv, respectively.
Phosgene
Phosgene was determined by EPA Method TO-6. Gas samples were taken at the outlet
of the PDU scrubber and at the outlet of the adsorber. At these sample locations,
phosgene was measured at concentrations of 1,472.7 ppbv and 23.8 ppbv, respectively.
CO
Carbon monoxide was determined by ASTM D-1946. CO was measured in the SVE off-
gas and at the PTI System outlet, to determine the amount of CO produced in the
System. The concentration of CO was below the detection limit of 0.0025% (v/v) in the
184
-------
SVE off-gas, and an average of 0.0056% (v/v) at the system outlet. Therefore, the
amount of CO produced in the PTI System was between 0.0031 and 0.0056%.
Dioxins
Dioxin testing was to be performed, using EPA Method 23.0, only if PCB-indicating
compounds were found to be in the SVE off-gas stream. Past demonstrations of the PTI
system have shown no dioxin formation when PCBs are not present. Because the
potential for PCBs exists in the contaminated soil at Site 9, Area 3, PCBs, pesticides
and SVOCs were sampled for during week 1 using California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Method 429. This analysis showed no presence of PCB-indicating compounds
present in the SVE off-gas, therefore no dioxin tests were performed.
A tabular comparison of the System residuals to allowable levels within the San Diego
Air pollution Control District is presented in Table 3-11. This comparison shows that
the residual levels were in fact below known maximum allowable levels for CO and
HC1. In a conversation with a San Diego Air Pollution Control District manager, PTI
learned that emission standards for chlorine and phosgene are not established but
reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis. For the purposes of this report a
formal emissions review application was not submitted.
Table 3-11. Residuals Data
Contaminant
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Hydrochloric Acid
Phosgene
Measured
Concentration
5.9 ppmv
0.04 ppbv
0.1 8 ppbv
23.8 ppbv
Maximum
Allowable
Emission1
none
NA2
<10 ppmv
NA2
Analytical Method
ASTM-D1946
EPA Method 26A
EPA Method 26A
EPA Method TO-6
Notes:
1. "Maximum Allowable Emissions" as determined by the San Diego Air Pollution Control
District.
2. "NA" denotes no standard available. According to the San Diego County Air Pollution
District, the maximum allowable emission for this compound is determined on a case-by-
case basis. A formal review of the process residues by the governing regulatory agencies
was not part of the scope of this project.
3.6 Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
This section discusses the observations and lessons learned with respect to the objectives
of the demonstration. Table 3-12 shows the Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or
Performance.
185
-------
Table 3-12. Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
System Parameters
SVE Flow Rate
Operating Vacuum
Residence Time
System Throughput
Gas Inlet Temperature
Value
239 to 307 cfm
0 to -35" w.c.
9 seconds - Concentrator
3 minutes - PDU
0.83 to 1.45 Ibs/hr
89 to 113°F
Measurement Procedure
Flow meter, pitot tube.
Pressure gauge.
Calculated.
On-line FID reading at
system inlet and outlet.
Thermocouple.
Objective 5. Document observed operating problems and their solutions.
This demonstration of an integrated Concentrator Unit and PDU was the first of its kind
for the treatment and destruction of gas-phase VOCs. In fact, this project was the first
field implementation of a concentrator system by PTI. This demonstration provided an
invaluable learning experience for PTI, and will hopefully provide valuable cost and
performance data for the U.S. Navy and other DoD agencies.
Process operating parameters were monitored by PTI personnel throughout the test period
on a regular basis. A discussion of problems encountered with each of the PTI System
modules follows. PTI is confident that all of the operational problems encountered were
resolved satisfactorily, and further plans to incorporate design modifications into the
system to prevent these problems on future installations. A discussion of these problems
and their solutions for each component of the system is given below.
Concentrator Unit
• The most significant operational problems were encountered during the Parametric
Tests as a direct result of very heavy rains. All of these problems were due to rain
water or condensate getting sucked into the adsorber or desorber (both units operate
under vacuum), and subsequently plugging the flow of adsorbent beads. This
plugged flow would result in a system shutdown due to a high pressure alarm.
Several measures were taken to prevent this plugging from occurring: insulating the
desorber and adsorbent transfer lines to prevent condensate from forming in these
areas; extending the PDU return line into the adsorber approximately 12 inches (") to
prevent condensate from collecting in the adsorber downcomer sections; sealing all
seams in the adsorber and adsorbent transfer containers with silicon; piping the
adsorber pressure vents to a manifold header to prevent the transfer of rain water into
the adsorber; and placing c-clamps to tighten the seals between adsorber stages.
• A fine mesh screen, installed at the outlet of the adsorber to prevent adsorbent beads
from exiting the system, became plugged with a very fine black powder. PTI
believes this powder was created from the conditioning of the adsorbent beads. If
not monitored, PTI found that this plugging would eventually shutdown the system
on a high pressure alarm. To solve this problem, the screen was replaced with a
perforated plate having 60% free area and 0.05" diameter holes.
186
-------
• A high-temperature excursion (650 °F) was noted in the desorber, forcing the
shutdown of the system. PTI determined that the temperature excursion was caused by
the plugging of adsorbent beads at the bottom of the desorber. Once plugged, the
beads were subjected to high temperatures (285 °F) for a prolonged period of time, in
excess of 12 hours. PTI believes these high temperature conditions, coupled with high
concentrations of solvent, led to an exothermic reaction. The system was allowed to
cool and later inspected. No visible signs of damage were present, and samples of the
adsorbent beads were taken for analysis. This problem was not experienced again.
• A couple of leaks were noted at a weld point in the condenser. These were repaired
on-line with J-B Weld©.
• Higher than expected attrition of the adsorbent beads was experienced throughout the
demonstration. PTI is not sure if this is a characteristic of the adsorbent material
itself or, a result of high shear forces breaking the adsorbent beads down. PTI will
be making equipment modifications to reduce gas flow velocities in the adsorber and
the transfer tubes to reduce high shear forces.
• Initially, PTI was unable to operate the desorber using strip steam unattended due to
a PLC programming error. This was corrected by making a minor modification in
the control program.
PDU
• During continuous operation, the outlet manifold of each PDU reactor would become
choked with a very dry, friable, material believed to be caused by the condensation of
heavy-chained hydrocarbons leaving the relatively hot reactor internal area and entering
the cooler transfer line to the scrubber. A similar material was noted during operations
at McClellan Air Force Base (AFB). During the McClellan AFB demonstration this
material was tested using EPA Method 8015-M and shown to contain "unidentified
extractable hydrocarbons in the C9 to C22 range" (CH2M Hill). To overcome this
problem, PTI would routinely "rod-out" this material, thereby clearing the outlet
manifold and capturing the material in the scrubber. PTI plans to incorporate an
automatic purge system to keep the outlet manifold clear in future designs.
• PTI discovered that a transformer ballast used to power the UV lamps in the PDU
reactors had been damaged during shipping. The damaged ballast was replaced.
3.7 System Costs
This section discusses the costs with respect to the objectives of the demonstration.
Objective 2. Develop treatment cost data for a 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfm) PTI system, designed to achieve the DREs measured above, for VOC-
contaminated soil vapor similar to those at Site 9. PTI will operate their system in
several configurations and parameters to fully demonstrate the performance of the
system under differing conditions while obtaining the supporting cost data. Cost
data will be reduced to a $/lb. of VOC treated at various removal efficiencies. These
costs will be compared to the costs to achieve an overall removal efficiency of 99%
of VOCs at NAS North Island Site 9 using regenerative carbon adsorption and
thermal oxidation.
187
-------
The cost estimate shown in Table 3-13 was developed using data collected from the
demonstration. Standard engineering principles were used to scale-up costs for a 3,000
scfm system. This is the size system presently required to treat 100% of the soil vapor
gas being extracted at Site 9. The $/LB. of VOC treated is estimated to be $3.77. The
assumptions made to derive the 3,000 scfm treatment system cost are in Table 3-14.
Table 3-15 displays costs by the standardized work-breakdown (WBS) structure.
Table 3-13. 3,000 scfm PTI System Cost Summary
Capital Costs1'2
Concentrator Unit
PDU
Mobilization & Installation3
Size (cfm)
Cost
Size (cfm)
Cost
Total Capital Costs
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Power On-Line Availability4
Removal Efficiency5
Power Costs/kwh6
Total Load7 (kw)
Total Electricity Cost
Consumables
Solvent Condensate
Labor
Reagent Panels8
UV Lamps9
Caustic Solution10
Boiler Chemicals11
Total Consumables Cost
Condensate Disposal12
Maintenance Labor13
Operating Labor14
Total Labor Cost
Total Operating Cost
Cost per Pound of VOC Treated15
VOCs Treated (pounds)
Over Cleanup
Equipment & Operating Costs Over Cleanup
Cost per Pound
3,000
$310,000
6
$87,343
$17,146
$414,489
89%
95%
$0.07
218
$118,973 per year
$4,061
$3,817
$783
$6,184
$14,844 per year
$18,339 per year
$5,436
$67,364
$72,800 per year
$224,957 per year
95,479 per year
286,437 in 3 years
$1,081,254 in 3 years
$3.77
188
-------
Table 3-14. Assumptions and Basis for Costs
1. Costs are based on those incurred during the demonstration.
2. Equipment Capital Costs are vendor-supplied prices.
3. Mobilization and Installation costs are based on actual costs incurred for the
demonstration, plus 20% to account for the additional weight of a 3,000 scfm
Concentration Unit.
4. On-line availability is 89%, or 7,796 operational hours per year.
5. Average VOC loading at 3,000 scfm is 196 ppmv, or 12.24 Ibs/hr.
6. The process controls VOC emissions to <25 ppmv.
7. Total Power Load of 218 kwh, calculated as follows:
Concentrator power load = (3,000 cfm * 300cfm) x 31 = 310kw
PDU power load (2 reactors) = 15.1 kw
Other utilities power load = 5.2 kw
Total design power load = 310 + 15,1 + 5.2 = 330.30 kw
Design power load for 440 cfm system = 57 kw _ ^0/0
Actual measured power load = 38.5 kw
Actual normal power load = 330.30 kw x 66% = 218 kw
8. Reagent panel cost = 24 panels, replaced every 4 weeks x $14.63/panel
9. UV lamps replacement cost = 144 lamps with a 10,000 hour lifetime x $34.00/lamp.
10. Scrubber caustic solution = 231.55 gallons/year x $186.00 per 55-gallon barrel.
11. Boiler water chemicals = (584.73 gallons of chemical x $10.00/gallon) +
($12.00/month water softener rental) + (1.07 filter changes/month * $15.00/filter)
12.Condensate disposal assumes 70% of VOCs condensed, yielding (76,192 Ibs/year x
$0.17/lb.) + (4 pickups/year x ($1,275.00 transportation + $65.00 labor)) + (solvent
profile at $550.00)
13.Maintenance labor for the PDU = labor cost of $35.00/hr x 74 hours per year ( to
replace reagent panels, UV lamps and caustic solution); maintenance labor for the
concentrator = $35.00/hr x 81 hours per year (for boiler water treatment).
14. Operating labor = (1) technical service person, making $35.00/hr (including overhead
factor of 1.4) x (2,080 hours per year - maintenance hours listed above in 13.)
15. Cost per Ib. of VOC Treated = (Equipment & Operating Costs for a 3-year cleanup)
•5- (VOCs treated in a 3-year period)
189
-------
Table 3-15. Standardized Cost Breakdown
Before
Treatment
Cost
Elements
Treatment
Cost
Elements
After
Treatment
Cost
Elements
WBS
No.
331.01.03
331.01
331.03
331.09
331.12
331.13
331.02
331.21
331.19
331.21.06
Cost Element
Demonstration Work Plan
Mobilization and Preparatory
Work: mobilization of
equipment and personnel
Site Work: installation of
electrical utilities, field run gas
piping equipment installation
Liquids Collection and
Containment: establish
liquids containment area
field run piping to discharge
waste water to site sewer
Chemical Treatment:
Photolytic Oxidation of VOCs
equipment rental equipment
O&M
Physical Treatment: VOC
Concentration equipment
rental equipment O&M
Monitoring, Sampling,
Testing, and Analysis: of
SVE gas stream, process
outlet, process residues
Demobilization: of equipment
and personnel
Disposal: of liquid condensate,
PDU reagent panels, PDU
cooling water, condenser
chiller water scrubber solution
Prepare and submit Final
Report
Total Demonstration Costs:
Unit Cost
$7,628.80
$3,124.00
$12,011.00
$2,000.00
$1.51/lbof
VOC
treated
$1.74/lbof
VOC
treated
$57,762.50
$3,124.00
included in
price above
$4,334.64
No. of
Units
fixed
price
fixed
price
fixed
price
fixed
price
1,151
1,151
fixed
price
fixed
price
fixed
price
fixed
price
Cost
$7,628.80
$3,124.00
$12,011.00
$2,000.00
$1,738.01
$2,002.74
$57,762.50
$3,124.00
included in
price above
$4,334.64
$93,725.69
190
-------
Section 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions were developed by PTI from the technology demonstration:
• The PTI System is relatively quick to install and ready for operation as demonstrated
by the experience at Site 9, where it was installed and commissioned within one
week. The equipment operated continuously, 24-hours per day, seven days per week,
achieving an on-line availability of 89%.
• For treatment of the SVE off-gas at Site 9, Configuration-1: "Concentration-
Condensation-Photolytic Destruction" was the most efficient setup.
• The PTI system was successful in removing VOCs in the SVE off-gas to below the
maximum allowable emissions at Site 9 of 25 ppmv. The average total DRE for
VOCs was 95%. The PDU alone achieved an overall DRE of 97%. These results
were computed from FID data.
• The estimated unit cost of implementing a 3,000 scfm PTI System at Site 9 is $3.77
per Ib. of VOC treated. The commercialization of the technology over the next few
years will lower the treatment costs further.
Based upon this demonstration, PTI recommends implementing the following design
modifications to enhance system performance and/or reduce treatment costs:
• Redesign the weather seals in the Concentration Unit to prevent ambient rainwater
and humidity from entering the adsorber.
• Evaluate the performance of different adsorbent materials to determine which
adsorbent would offer the highest removal efficiencies, cost effectively.
Objective 6. Disseminate the results of the demonstration throughout the DoD,
DOE, private industry, state regulatory agencies and the NAS RAB.
The results of this technology demonstration will be presented to other Naval Remedial
Project Managers, compiled into a database for distribution to interested public and
private sector parties, and shown on the NFESC web page. The RAB is a partnership
between NAS North Island, local regulatory agencies and the local community. The
purpose of the RAB is to review and comment on remedial action methods prior to
implementation. Therefore, any innovative technology that is considered for
implementation at NAS North Island will be reviewed by the RAB. This Final Report
will be submitted to the RAB for their information and review.
191
-------
Section 5. References
"Process Technologies Incorporated, Technology Demonstration Final Work Plan",
NAS North Island, Site 9, Contract No. N47408-97-C0125, October 1997.
"Photolytic Destruction Technology Memorandum", McClellan Air Force Base, Site S,
Operable Unit D, CH2M Hill, June 1996.
"Final Project Plan for Non-Time Critical Removal Action for Sites 9 and 11, Naval Air
Station North Island, San Diego County, CA", OHM Remediation Services Corporation,
April 1996.
192
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
Seymour, Indiana
193
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
Seymour, Indiana
Site Name:
Seymour Recycling Corporation
Superfund Site
Location:
Seymour, Indiana
Contaminants:
Volatile and Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) and (SVOCs)
- More than 35 compounds
identified including tricholorethane
(TCA), tetracholroethane (PCA),
trichloroethene (TCE),
tetracholroethene (PCE), carbon
tetrachloride, and benzene
Period of Operation:
June 1992 to Present (Report
covers period of June 1992 through
1996)
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Information not provided
State Contact:
Prabhakar Kasarabada
IDEM
1 DON. Senate Avenue,
12A Fl. North
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)308-3117
PRP Lead Contractor:
Victoria Kramer
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
88 Duryea Road
Melville, NY 11747
(516)391-5268
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 19 horizontal vapor extraction
wells, 11 horizontal ah- inlet wells
(passive), a vacuum blower, a
moisture separator, and an
activated carbon adsorption system
- Ah- flow rate - 52.9 to 122.6 cfm
(average per quarter); 80 cfm
(average over 2.8 years of
operation)
- Operating vacuum 27 - 40 inches
of water
Multimedia Cap
- Constructed over the horizontal
SVE wells (24-inch vegetative
cover, geotextile fabric, 12-inch
thick drainage layer, 60 mil thick
synthetic liner, 2-ft thick clay/till
layer)
In Situ Bioremediation
- Nutrient addition - 8/86-10/86;
1/97-2/97; and 8/90
- Mechanical injection of nutrient
solution (nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, and sulfur)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD date: September 30, 1987
Remedial Project Manager:
Jeff Gore
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312)886-6552
Waste Source: Improper waste
management practices
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE system using
lorizontal wells, in combination
with in situ bioremediation, under a
multimedia cap.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 200,000 cubic yards of soil, based on an area of 12 acres and a
depth of 10ft.
194
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
Seymour, Indiana (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Chemical-specific soil cleanup levels were not specified for this application. Instead, requirements were
specified in terms of a system design goal.
- The design goal for the SVE system was to extract a total volume of soil vapor equal to 500 pore volumes from
beneath the site within 30 years. The system was to be operated to extract between 2 and 35 pore volumes per
year. After 500 pore volumes of soil vapor had been extracted, the system was to be operated as a passive
system.
Results:
- As of 1997,430 pore volumes and about 30,000 pounds of VOCs had been extracted by the SVE system.
Cost:
- Capital cost for the SVE system - $1.2 million
- O&M data were provided only as a aggregate for all remediation activities at the site; therefore, O&M costs
specific to the SVE system were not available.
Description:
From 1970 to early 1980, the Seymour Recycling Corporation (SRC) and its corporate predecessor, Seymour
Manufacturing Company, processed, stored, and incinerated chemical wastes at the Seymour site. The site,
which occupies about 14 acres, was closed when SRC failed to meet a 1978 agreement with the State of Indiana
to cease receiving wastes and to institute better waste management practices. In 1980, the site was placed under
receivership by a state court. In 1982, EPA signed a Consent Decree with a small group of Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) to complete "surface cleanup" at the site. On September 9, 1983, the site was listed
on the NPL. A ROD signed in September 1986 specified an interim groundwater pump-and-treat system remedy.
A second ROD, signed in September 1987, specified more comprehensive remediation of the site, including the
use of SVE.
The SVE system included 19 horizontal vapor extraction wells, 11 horizontal air inlet wells (passive), a vacuum
blower, a moisture separator, and an activated carbon adsorption system. Approximately 12,700 linear feet of
horizontal vapor extraction piping (laterals) were installed about 30 inches below grade. Wells were spaced
approximately 50 ft apart and a multimedia cap was constructed above the wells. During installation of the SVE
system, five lateral extraction wells were damaged. Repair of these wells was not feasible because of possible
cap damage; therefore, the damaged wells were converted to fresh-air inlet wells. Ah- inlet wells were
maintained at atmospheric pressure and extraction wells maintained at less than atmospheric pressure. This
configuration resulted in ambient ah- entering the inlet wells at atmospheric pressure, being drawn through the
unsaturated zone, and then being exhausted through the sub-atmospheric-pressure extraction wells. With the
exception of the five damaged wells described above, all wells were designed to be able to operate as either
extraction or inlet wells. In situ bioremediation was included in the remedy because it was believed that not all
of the compounds detected at the site would be amenable to SVE treatment. As of 1997,430 pore volumes and
about 30,000 pounds of VOCs had been extracted by the SVE system. Remedial activities at the site were
ongoing at the time of this report.
195
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Site Name: Seymour Recycling Corporation
Superfund Site
Location: Seymour, Indiana
CERCLIS ID No.: IND040313017
Record of Decision (ROD) Date:
September 30,1987
Treatment Application M7)
Type of Action: Remedial
Technology: Soil Vapor Extraction
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? No
Period of Operation: June 1992 to Present
(Report covers period of June 1992 through
1996)
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 200,000 cubic yards of soil,
based on an area of 12 acres and a depth of
10ft.
Background Information M. 2.91
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Improper
waste management practices
Site History: From 1970 to early 1980, the
Seymour Recycling Corporation (SRC) and its
corporate predecessor, Seymour Manufacturing
Company, processed, stored, and incinerated
chemical wastes at the Seymour site. The site,
which occupies about 14 acres, was closed
when SRC failed to meet a 1978 agreement
with the State of Indiana to cease receiving
wastes and to institute better waste
management practices.
In 1980, the site was placed under receivership
by a state court. In 1981, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fenced
the site to restrict access, constructed dikes to
control site runoff, installed an on-site carbon
adsorption unit to treat surface water, and
sampled on-site soil and the contents of on-site
drums and tanks.
In 1982, EPA signed a Consent Decree with a
small group of Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) to complete "surface cleanup" at the
site. Surface cleanup activities, conducted by
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) between
December 1982 and January 1984, involved the
removal and disposal off-site of all wastes
stored at the ground surface, including about
50,000 drums and 100 storage tanks.
Contaminated soil was excavated from about
75 percent of the site to a depth of 1 foot. In
addition, contaminated soil was excavated to a
depth of 2 feet from a drum crushing pad area
that had been constructed during cleanup
activities. The excavated soil was disposed off-
site. The site was backfilled with clean fill and
covered with a protective clay cap.
Shallow groundwater from the site flows
towards a nearby farm and the Snyde Acres
subdivision, which has about 100 residences.
EPA entered into agreements in 1982 and 1983
with additional PRPs to establish funds for
extending Seymour's municipal water system to
the farm and Snyde Acres subdivision. This
extension of the water system was performed in
1985.
Regulatory Information [3.11]
On September 9, 1983, the site was listed on
the Superfund National Priority List (NPL).
In September 1986, EPA and the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) prepared a ROD for the Seymour site
that specified an interim groundwater pump-
and-treat system to treat groundwater at the
site. On September 30,1987, a second ROD
was signed that outlined a comprehensive site
cleanup. In December 1988, a Consent Decree
outlining the Seymour site remedial
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
196
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
(CONTINUED)
design/remedial action (RD/RA) cleanup was
signed by EPA, IDEM, the City of Seymour, and
approximately 150 PRPs. The PRPs are
represented by the Seymour Site Trust.
Remedy Selection:
The second ROD (September 1987) for
Seymour identified the following remedial
actions:
• Implementation of a full-scale soil vapor
extraction (SVE) system
• In situ bioremediation of soils
• Groundwater extraction and treatment by
air stripping (an expansion of the interim
system specified in the 1986 ROD)
• Mixed-media capping
Excavation of 800 yds 3 of contaminated
creek sediment and consolidation of the
sediment beneath the cap
• Deed and access restrictions and other
institutional controls
According to the ROD, the use of a cap and
operation of SVE would be useful in preventing
leaching of contaminants from the soil to the
groundwater, preventing direct contact with
contaminated soil, and preventing run-off of
contaminated water or sediment. The ROD
also indicated that SVE was expected to reduce
substantially the concentrations of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in the unsaturated
soils, and that, by including SVE, the selected
remedy would be more protective of human
health and the environment than a similar
remedy without SVE.
The remedial action at Seymour consists of two
response actions, one for groundwater and one
for the source area. The response action for
contaminated groundwater is identified as
Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) and for the source area
as OU 2. This report is focused on the SVE
application at the site. Limited information
about the design, operation, performance, and
cost of the groundwater cleanup system is
provided in this report to present a context for
the SVE application.
Site Contacts
Site Lead: PRP
Oversight: EPA
Site Management:
EPA Lead
Jeff Gore, Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Telephone: (312) 886-6552
State Contact:
Prabhakar Kasarabada
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
100 N. Senate Avenue, 12 m Floor North
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Telephone: (317)308-3117
PRP Lead Contractor:
Victoria Kramer
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
88 Duryea Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516) 391-5268
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix: Soil
i
Contaminant Characterization [1. 2. 3. 9]
Primary Contaminant Groups: From August
1983 to May 1986, EPA performed a remedial
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
197
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED)
investigation (Rl) at the site. Major Rl results
are summarized below.
• On-site soils at various depths were
contaminated with hazardous organic and
inorganic compounds. More than 35
organic compounds were identified,
including relatively high concentrations of
1,1,2-trichloroethane (TCA); benzene;
vinyl chloride; carbon tetrachloride;
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (PCA); and
trichloroethene (TCE). Concentrations of
VOCs detected in on-site soils ranged
from 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to
greater than 1,000 mg/kg.
• During the Rl, shallow groundwater
located at 6 to 8 feet below ground surface
(bgs) was found to be contaminated with
several organic compounds including
chloroethane; tetrahydrofuran; 1,4-
dioxane; 1,2-dichloroethane; benzene;
vinyl chloride; and 1,1,1-TCA.
Subsequent sampling determined that
tetrahydrofuran and 1,4-dioxane had
migrated about 3,900 feet north-northwest
of the site boundary.
• The deep aquifer located at 55 to 70 feet
bgs is separated from the shallow aquifer
by a silty clay aquitard. As of 1994,
continued monitoring of the deep aquifer
showed trace levels of site-specific
compounds; however, these compounds
do not appear to have migrated off site.
Sediment in the nearby northwest
drainage ditch area was contaminated with
VOCs but at concentrations of less than
10 mg/kg.
Table 1 summarizes the highest average VOC
concentrations in on-site soils above the water
table (1.5 to 6.0 feet bgs), as measured during
the 1986 Rl. The ROD indicated that there
were an estimated 200,000 Ibs of VOCs present
in the soil at the site.
Table 1: On-Site Soil Contaminants
and Concentrations [1]
Contaminant
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
PCE
1,1,2,2-PCA
TCE
1,1,2-TCA
Maximum Concentration
(mq/kaWlR, •'."•*&
1.4
280
15.5
0.0064
0.43
5.5
37
120
420
95
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance m
The key matrix characteristics that affect cost or
performance for this technology, and the values
measured for each, are provided below in Table
2. Hydrogeologic conditions at the Seymour
site included the following: a shallow water
table (1.5 to 6.0 feet bgs) that flows primarily
north and northwest, a complex distribution of
soil types, and low air permeabilities in the soil.
As discussed later, use of a clay cover allowed
for extraction of a relatively large amount of
VOCs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_ _ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tPA Technology Innovation Office
198
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED) !
Table 2: Matrix Characteristics [1,18]
m- * % ifc £: Matrix eb'arSctirlstic-;*-**;^,.^1"^.*
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic Carbon
Nonaaueous Phase Liquids
^-•^ilife, *5^/'?^'::^:;;fcteSMIu§'^:*§* '$£'. :%*!!:• *ii.:>
Information not provided
Sands, silts
Information not provided
Medium to high
Information not provided
Information not provided
Not observed
DESCRIPTION OF TH^ TREATMENT
SYSTEM: j ; |
Primary Treatment Technology
SVE
Supplemental Treatment Technology^
Activated carbon adsorption
In situ bioremediation
Multimedia cap
System Description and Operation
System Description [1, 2,17,18]
The remediation system for contaminated soil at
Seymour consisted of the following:
• Construction and operation of a SVE
system using horizontal wells
In situ bioremediation of soils
• Construction of a multi-media cap over the
SVE system
The SVE system was constructed at Seymour
between July and October 1990. The system
consisted of 19 horizontal vapor extraction
wells, 11 horizontal air inlet wells (passive), a
vacuum blower, a moisture separator, and an
activated carbon adsorption system.
Approximately 12,700 linear feet of horizontal
vapor extraction piping (laterals) were installed
about 30 inches below grade. The piping was
installed on a bed of compacted sand and
buried with a minimum of 8 inches of sand
compacted using a mechanical hand tamper.
The laterals were constructed using 4-inch
diameter slotted, corrugated, polyethylene pipe
wrapped in a filter sock. Extraction wells were
connected to a common, 4-inch diameter, 765-ft
long, high-density polyethylene (HOPE) header
pipe.
The air inlet wells each had a 30 ft long coil of
black plastic pipe attached to the well. Ambient
air first passed through the coiled pipe to warm
the air by solar radiation before it entered the
well.
Figure 1 shows a plan view of the design of the
vapor extraction and air inlet wells at Seymour.
Figure 2 shows a cross-section view of the
design for the wells. Wells were spaced
approximately 50 ft apart and a multimedia cap
was constructed above the wells.
During installation of the SVE system, five
lateral extraction wells were damaged. Repair
of these wells was not feasible because of
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
199
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
• Access Road
150
800 Feet
Boundaiyof -
Multimedia Cap
f
,---
p c
— —
D 5
p c
H «
p c
:/c
: ?
p c
: «
p c
: ?
p c
] «
p
D
• Extraction Well (Pressure < 1 atmosphere)
• Inlet Well (Pressure = 1 atmosphere)
All dimensions arc approximate
Figure 1. Plan View of the Design for the SVE Wells [1]
possible cap damage; therefore, the damaged
wells were converted to fresh-air inlet wells.
Air inlet wells were maintained at atmospheric
pressure and extraction wells maintained at less
than atmospheric pressure. This configuration
resulted in ambient air entering the inlet wells at
atmospheric pressure, being drawn through the
unsaturated zone, and then being exhausted
through the subatmospheric-pressure extraction
wells. With the exception of the five damaged
wells described above, all wells were designed
to be able to operate as either extraction or inlet
wells. Each extraction well was retrofitted to
accept a wind-driven turbine ventilator.
The vacuum blower used in this system is a
3-horsepower (HP) belt-driven model originally
designed to deliver 40 standard cubic feet per
minute (scfm) at 27 inches of water. However,
the blower actually operated at an average of 6
to 100 scfm, with higher flow rates in the
summer (100 scfm) and lower flow rates in the
winter (30 scfm). The blower is housed in a
fiberglass building on the north-central portion
of the site.
A multimedia cap was constructed over the
horizontal SVE wells at Seymour. The design
of the cap included (from top to bottom) a 24-
inch vegetative cover, geotextile fabric, a 12-
inch thick drainage layer, a 0.060-inch (60 mil)
thick synthetic liner, a 2-ft thick clay/till layer,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
200
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.) j
SVE System Wells
Spaced About
SO Feet Apart
\7 Water
Table
Water \T
Table —*
Detail
Clay Cap
Soil Backfill
Gravel and Sand Pack
Perforated PVC Pipe
To
/Carbon
Filter
Not to scale
Figure 2. Cross Section of the Design for the SVE System Wells and Multimedia Cap [1]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
201
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
and another geotextile fabric. The cap was
constructed in December 1990.
In situ bioremediation of contaminated soils was
included as part of the remedy for this site
because it was believed that not all of the
compounds detected in soil at the site would be
amenable to treatment using vapor extraction.
Bioremediation was intended to be stimulated
by the addition of nutrients to the soil prior to
installation of the SVE system and cap. Nutrient
addition was performed August to October
1986, January to February 1987, and July to
August 1990 by mechanical injection and tilling
of nutrients 18-24-inches below grade. One
tanker-truck load of nutrient solution was added
to the soil (5 - 10,000 gallons), consisting of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur
fertilizer.
System Operation [2,4]
The design goal for the SVE system was to
extract a total volume of soil vapor equal to 500
pore volumes from beneath the site within
30 years. The system was to be operated to
extract between 2 and 35 pore volumes per
year. After 500 pore volumes of soil vapor had
been extracted, the system was to be operated
as a passive system.
The design goal of extracting 500 pore volumes
could be achieved after one or more temporary
shutdowns. The system shut down active SVE
operation 12/31/97 and is in the process of 1
year of passive activity (1/1/98 - 12/31/98).
Passive operation is intended to allow build up
of vapors under the clay cap and anaerobic
bioremediation of chlorinated solvents in soil.
The system began operating in June 1992 at an
average flow rate of 104 scfm. Samples were
collected and analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC), and permanent
gases that include oxygen, carbon dioxide,
methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen.
Permanent gas samples were collected to
evaluate aeration and biological activity at the
site.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance
The key operating parameters that affect cost or
performance for this technology, and the values
measured for each, are provided below.
Table 3: Operating Parameters [5-8,19]
Operating
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Operating Vacuum
Value
52.9 to 122.6 cfm (average
per quarter); 80 cfm
(average over 2.8 years of
operation)
27 - 40 inches of water
Groundwater Pump-and-Treat System Mil
In addition to the remediation system for
contaminated soil, an interim pump-and-treat
system for contaminated groundwater was
installed at the site in 1987. A permanent
pump-and-treat system was completed in
February 1991.
The pump-and-treat system at Seymour
consists of two extraction wells located about
300 and 1,000 ft from the northern site
boundary, with a combined pumping rate of
approximately 140 gallons per minute (gpm).
An additional well is located approximately 3/4
mile from the source area (at the far edge of the
groundwater contamination plume), and is used
only as a monitoring well. Extracted
groundwater is treated on site with an iron
reaction and settling system, air stripping, and
additional filtering including activated carbon.
The treated groundwater is discharged to the
City of Seymour's Publicly-Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EPA Technology Innovation Office
202
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.) ,
Table 4: Timeline [4]
.^StafrtDatert'ft
1970
1980
1982
December 1982
August 1983
September 9, 1983
September 1986
September 30, 1987
December 1988
July 1990
December 1990
June 1992
1/1/98
f --End-iDatiSsr
1980
-
-
January 1984
May 1986
-
-
-
-
October 1990
-
1997
12/31/98
Ifc, **,:»*•-:.*;: «, S:B-;*? ;«^:-'^Aclility^**v-*- ;§f;a£-*J2" ««* • •**- -;'
Seymour Recycling Corporation and its predecessor, Seymour
Manufacturing Company, processed, stored, and incinerated chemical
wastes at the Seymour site.
The site was placed under receivership by state court.
A consent decree was signed by EPA and the PRPs requiring "surface
cleanup."
Surface cleanup was performed.
EPA conducted an Rl at the site.
The site was listed on the NPL.
The first ROD was signed for this site.
The second ROD was signed for this site.
A Consent Decree outlining the Seymour site RD/RA cleanup was
by EPA, IDEM, the City of Seymour, and approximately 150 PRPs
signed
The SVE system was constructed.
The multi-media cap was constructed at the site.
The SVE system was operated.
The SVE system was shut down to allow the soils to return to an
anaerobic state.
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards 131
No performance goals or standards for
contaminated soil were identified in the ROD for
this site. However, a design goal for the SVE
system was to extract a total volume of soil
vapor equal to 500 pore volumes within 30
years.
While no specific soil cleanup goals were
included in the ROD, the ROD specified that
groundwater be restored to attain a cumulative
excess cancer risk of 1x10'5 at the site
boundaries and a risk of 1x10 * at the nearest
current receptor, and to meet the MCLs at the
site boundary for specific carcinogenic
constituents including benzene, chloroform,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1 -dichloroethene,
trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. In addition,
the ROD specified that the total health index
(HI) not exceed 1, to account for the non-
carcinogenic effects of contaminants in the
groundwater using procedures specified in the
Superfund Public Health Manual.
Treatment Performance Data F5-81
Treatment performance data for this application,
presented below, include the following: the
concentration and mass of contaminants
extracted from the soil and groundwater, the
number of soil pore volumes extracted, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
203
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
concentrations of "permanent"-gases (oxygen,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrogen) in the extraction system effluent,
and the results from ambient air monitoring for
VOCs and SVOCs.
SVE Performance Data T4. 5. 6.7. 8.111
The vendor's plan for collection and analysis of
samples of extracted vapors was different for
VOCs than for SVOCs. For VOCs, the vendor
was to collect samples on a monthly basis from
startup through June 1993 (1 year), on a
quarterly basis through December 1993 (6
months), on a semiannual basis through
September 1995 (2 years), and annually after
that time for the duration of system operation.
For SVOCs, the vendor was to collect samples
on a quarterly basis from January 1993 to
December 1993 (1 year), on a semiannual basis
through December 1994 (1 year), and annually
after that time for the duration of system
operation.
The mass of VOCs extracted by the SVE and
pump-and-treat systems are summarized on
Table 5 for the period 1989 through 1996. The
mass of VOCs was calculated as the sum of the
masses of 48 specific constituents, as provided
in References 5 through 8.
As shown on Table 5, the SVE system extracted
a total of 29,166 pounds of VOCs (of an
estimated 200,000 pounds) over a four and
one-half year period from June 1992 to
December 1996. The mass of VOCs extracted
per year by the SVE system decreased by more
than 90% over the four year period. Figure 3
summarizes the total mass of VOCs removed
by the SVE system as a function of time. As
shown on Figure 3, the total mass of VOCs
removed is approaching an asymptotic value.
The following VOCs accounted for
approximately 85 percent of the total mass of
VOCs extracted by the SVE system over the
four year period: cis-DCE (8.7%), PCE(9.7%),
toluene (4.8%), 1,1,1-TCA (31.8%),
TCE (23.2%), and 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(freon) (7.0%).
Constituent-specific concentration data were
available for nine VOCs in the vapors extracted
from the vadose zone; concentrations ranged
as follows during a four year period from 1993-
1996:
Benzene - ND to 2 parts per million by volume
(ppmv)
Carbon tetrachloride - ND to 1.5 ppmv
Chloroform - ND to 2 ppmv
1,2-Dichloroethane - ND to 6 ppmv
DCE-NDto1.5ppmv
Methylene chloride - ND to 2 ppmv
PCE-NDto130ppmv
TCE - ND to 600 ppmv
Vinyl chloride - ND to 8 ppmv
According to the EPA RPM, SVOCs have never
been measured at concentrations above a level
that was considered a risk to human health and
the environment. EPA stopped sampling for
SVOCs in 1995. SVOCs were analyzed for in 8
sampling events during 1992 and 1993 by
collecting samples of extracted vapors in a
Tedlar bag near the blower. SVOCs were
measured as below detection limits (DL) in 4 of
the 8 events. In the events where they were
detected, concentrations included the following:
SVOCs
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Methyl Naphthalene
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Concentrations
Measured Above DL
(mg/kg)
0.6
0.02
0.07
0.014
0.065
0.045
0.014
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_ _ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EPA Technology Innovation Office
204
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 5: Mass of VOCs (Ibs) Extracted By SVE and
Groundwater Pump-and-Treat Systems [5,6,7,8,11]
^' •••• ^fcfeTime? %%&, _ . ;•;£
1989 - December 31 , 1992*
January 1 - December 31, 1993
January 1 - December 31, 1994
January 1 - December 31, 1995
January 1 - July 31 , 1 996
Aupust 1 - December 31, 1996**
il^-i^EpSfstem -
Mass per
Time Period
15,019
8,543
3,741
1,302
162
398
Cumulative
Mass
15,019
23,562
27,303
28,606
28,768
29,166
P^mp-and-T^aitiSystel^^-'
Mass per
Time Period
1,081
684
491
167
342
Not Provided
Cumulative
Mass
1,081
1,765
2,256
2,423
2,765
Not Provided
* SVE system operation began on June 9,1992
** Derived from Ref. 11, p. 5
50,000
T> 40,000 -
1
•o
30,000 -
<3
§
o 20,000
£
10,000 -
4/1/91 12/7/91 8/13/92 4/20/93 12/26/93 3/2/94 9/2/94 5/10/95 9/21/96 12/31/96
Date
Figure 3. Total Mass of VOCs Removed by SVE System Over Time [5-8]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
205
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 6 summarizes information about the
number of pore volumes extracted by the SVE
system from startup through December 31,
1997 (2.8 years of operation). Almost 430 pore
volumes were extracted during this period (a
pore volume at this site is equal to 460,000
cubic feet). The number of pore volumes
extracted per quarter ranged from as high as 35
(3rd quarter 1992) to 15 (1st quarter 1994).
Also as shown on Table 6, the average flow rate
for the SVE system at this site ranged from
122.6 cfm to 52.9 cfm over this time period.
Permanent gases were analyzed using samples
collected in Tedlar bags. Methane was
detected
at concentrations as high as 7.8 percent at
startup, at concentrations of less than 0.1
percent after completing two months of system
operation (August 1992), and has remained at
that lower concentration since that time.
Carbon dioxide was detected at concentrations
as high as 9.5 percent at startup, at
concentrations of less than 0.1 percent after 9
months of operation (March 1993), and has
remained at that lower concentration since that
time. The concentration of oxygen was
measured as low as 3.6 percent at startup,
increased to atmospheric levels (21 percent)
after 4 months of operation (October 1992), and
has remained at this elevated concentration
since that time.
Table 6: Number of Pore Volumes Extracted by SVE System [6,11,18]
Integrating Period
Startup
3rd Quarter 1992
4th Quarter 1992
1st Quarter 1993
2nd Quarter 1993
3* Quarter 1993
4* Quarter 1993
1" Quarter 1994
2nd Quarter 1994
3rd Quarter 1994
4th Quarter 1994
1st Quarter 1995
2nd and 3rd Quarters 1995
4th Quarter 1995
1" and 2nd Quarters 1996
3rd and 4th Quarters 1996
1" and 2nd Quarters 1997
3rd and 4m Quarters 1997
Total (through 12/31/97)
Starting
Date
06/09/92
07/01/92
10/01/92
01/01/93
04/01/93
07/01/93
10/01/93
01/01/94
04/01/94
07/01/94
10/01/94
01/01/95
4/1/95
10/1/95
1/1/96
7/1/96
1/1/97
7/1/97
Ending Date
06/30/92
09/30/92
12/31/92
03/31/93
06/30/93
09/30/93
12/31/93
03/31/94
06/30/94
09/30/94
12/31/94
03/31/95
9/30/95
12/31/95
6/30/96
12/31/96
6/30/97
12/31/97
Flow Average
(cfm)1
121.8
122.6
101.2
85.7
103.5
78.3
64.8
52.9
61.5
88.7
62.5
60.0
85
75
37.5
53
27
76.5
Number of Pore
Volumes Removed 2
8.0
34.9
28.8
24.1
29.5
22.5
18.7
14.9
17.5
25.6
18.0
16.9
30
10
40
40
13
36
427
1 SVE flowrate recorded by flow sensor and data logging system flow totalizer.
2 One pore volume is equal to approximately 460,000 cubic feet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
206
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM j
PERFORMANCE (coNTt.)]
These concentrations of permanent gases
indicate that, at startup, the vadose zone was in
an anaerobic state, with low concentrations of
oxygen but high concentrations of methane and
carbon dioxide. However, after several months
of system operation, these data show that the
vadose zone became aerobic, with atmospheric
concentrations of oxygen. Aerobic conditions
were identified by the vendor as important for
minimizing decomposition of DCE, TCE and
PCE and for promoting aerobic biodegradation.
Ambient air samples were collected during initial
system startup and during long-term operations
(the first annual sampling took place in July
1994.) These samples were collected during the
summer from a sampling station located down-
wind from the site. According to the vendor,
samples were collected during the summer
because that is when the greatest chance for
volatilization and low wind conditions are likely to
occur. The vendor indicated that quarterly
samples of ambient air showed concentrations of
VOCs in the 1 - 2 ppb range, that no SVOCs
were detected, and that most compounds that
were detected were not related to operations at
the site. According to the vendor, these results
support their conclusion from a risk assessment
that no adverse impacts to the ambient air have
resulted from the site operations.
Pump-and-Treat Performance Data 15. 6. 7. 8.
11.14.181
Table 5 also shows the mass of VOCs extracted
from the groundwater using the pump-and-treat
system, and compares the mass of VOCs
extracted by SVE with the mass extracted from
the saturated zone using a pump-and-treat
system. As Table 5 shows, the pump-and-treat
system extracted a total of 2,765 pounds of
VOCs over a seven year period from 1989 to
1996. The SVE system extracted approximately
ten times more mass of VOCs from the vadose
zone than the pump-and-treat system extracted
from the saturated zone.
According to the EPA RPM, as of December
1997, approximately 30,000 pounds of organics
have been extracted from the vadose zone with
the SVE system, while only approximately 5,000
pounds have been extracted from the
groundwater using the pump-and-treat system.
According to EPA's Five-Year Review Report,
monitoring of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system indicates that containment and
reduction of contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater has been achieved at this site.
However, this report states that the size of the
plume has not been reduced and has "expanded
through dilution and groundwater flow at some
locations." The PRPs at this site are required to
operate the pump-and-treat system for a
minimum of 12 years and to meet drinking water
standards.
Performance Data Quality
A written quality assurance (QA) plan and
construction QA plan (CQAP) were prepared by
Canonie Environmental Services, Inc. (CES),
and approved by EPA prior to the start of SVE
system construction. In addition, a construction
quality control (QC) plan was prepared and
followed by CES. QA procedures were
developed for each phase of preconstruction,
construction, and postconstruction activities. No
exceptions to QA/QC procedures were noted in
the available references.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
207
-------
TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
Procurement Process
The PRP's contracted with G&M of Plainview,
New York, to design and implement the remedy.
Treatment System Cost [16]
Table 7 summarizes the construction and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the
overall remedial activity at Seymour. Actual
costs are provided for project inception through
1991, and projected expenditures from 1992
through 1997; this table shows costs for all
remedial activities at Seymour, including soil and
groundwater cleanups. As shown in Table 7,
approximately $23 million were expended at
Seymour from inception through 1991, and
approximately $7 million were projected as
expenditures from 1992 through 1997, for a total
of approximately $30 million from inception
through 1997.
Table 7: Remedial Costs for Seymour [16]
Item
Construction Subcontracts (cap, site
development, well installation, vapor extraction
system, bioremediation, pretreatment plants,
sediment removal, building demolition, Elk's Club
alternate water supply)
Engineering/Technical Support (cap, site
development, well installation, vapor extraction
system, air monitoring/risk assessment,
bioremediation, pretreatment plants, sediment
removal, building demolition, Elk's Club alternate
water supply)
Operation and Maintenance (consultant charges,
wages/salaries, lab costs, maintenance, utilities,
chemical/supplies)
Trust Administration
Agency Oversight
Contingency **
Past Response Actions ***
TOTAL
Actual Expenditure
-Inception
Through. 1 991 :($
million)
8.71
4.91
2.20
0.50
0.46
0.00
6.50
23.28
Projected
Expenditures
1992 Through
1 997 ($ million)
0.43
0.19
3.57
0.58
0.89
1.00
0.00
6.66
Total Projected
Expenditures
Inception Through
1997 ($ million)*
9.14
5.10
5.77
1.08
1.35
1.00
6.50
29.94
i oiai rrojectea oost Through 1997 includes actual expenditures through 1991 plus projected expenditures
1992 through 1997
Contingency costs as projected by PRPs
Past response actions are for payments made after formation of the PRP Trust for response costs incurred by
EPA and the Coast Guard before trust cleanup activities were begun
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
c D . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr/V Technology Innovation Office
208
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfuncf Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM Cosfs
(CONT.) I
Actual costs for operation and maintenance of
the overall remedial action at Seymour are
further detailed in Table 8. Table 8 shows actual
costs for the elements that are included for each
year from 1992 through 1997. As shown in
Table 8, the total for actual costs for operation
and maintenance was $3,474,610.
As shown in Table 8, annual O&M costs for the
first four years of system operation averaged
approximately $750,000 per year, while annual
O&M costs for the latter two years of system
operation averaged approximately $220,000,
less than one-third as much as for the first four
years. The O&M costs decreased substantially
in the latter two years of system operation
because of the relatively lesser amount of time
required for document preparation, sampling,
data evaluation, and other activities. In addition,
since 1995 EPA has had no ARCS/RAC
contractors at this site.
Table 8: Actual Operation and Maintenance Costs - Overall Remedial Action at Seymour [12]
Sub.lfem ... -,:!;' ^•*i'\ .. •
Consultant Charges (operations
support, SVE and P&T well mainten-
ance, air modeling, SVE exhaust
monitoring, air quality monitoring, risk
assessment, sampling, modeling/
pumping restrictions, extraction
optimization, project administration)
Consultant Charges
Wages/Salaries (wages, secretarial
services, engineering/purchasing,
travel
Laboratory Costs (laboratory, sample
analysis, SVE monitoring, air quality
monitoring, laboratory/freight)
Maintenance (new equipment,
maintenance, replacement parts,
drillers, monitoring well replacement,
painting/security)
Utilities (electrical, gas, potable water,
telephone)
Chemical/Supplies
Trust Administration (local water
payments, legal expenses, bank fees,
outside auditors, trustee's fees)
Agency Oversight (EPA, Illinois DEM)
fpT^C "'"
• %'•'
?i99jf '
$293,322
124,555
148,852
74,574
36,634
8,201
65,495
123,203
$874,836
£-• -
•4993^
$272,874
148,058
105,115
58,139
34,856
3,931
62,070
277,184
$962f227,
'&•&
1994
$199,211
133,187
83,165
99,283
28,432
7,948
74,940
33,560
$659,726
' ,„? £fyr
1995 1,
$112,178
65,943
52,907
37,831
18,308
16,039
110,429
121,246
$534,8jtJ
~f'%
1996,,
$72,159
47,175
26,520
42,569
15,889
9,202
45,179
12,357
$27.lfp50^
•> :r/;/J997.
» Through
, September
$29,918
23,399
44,925
21,133
11,632
7,228
29,549
4,106
|;|i. $1.71,890
'V ••>
*.•• £>
Total
* /'/
''/£
„ ^
•.^
-
'/»
' /
-
$3,474,610
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
209
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
(CONT.)
Table 9 shows only that portion of the total
remedial costs that are due to the soil
remediation at Seymour. As shown in Table 9,
the expenditures for a vapor extraction system
were $1,200,000, consisting of $320,000 for
construction and $900,000 for
engineering/technical support.
According to the EPA RPM, unit costs for SVE
would be difficult to identify for this application,
because of the complex series of activities that
have taken place at this site in the past, and the
relatively large amount of money expended on
groundwater pump-and-treat compared with
SVE. The RPM indicated that SVE is fairly
inexpensive to operate and that blowers used in
SVE require very little in O&M (e.g., electricity)
as compared with pumps used in groundwater
pump-and-treat.
Table 9: Estimated Costs for Soil Remediation at Seymour [16]
Cost Element
Cost ($ inVl991),
Capital
Equipment and Construction
- Vapor extraction system
- Bioremediation
- Cap (including all site development)
Engineering/Technical Support
- Vapor extraction system
- Bioremediation
- Cap (including all site development)
Capital Subtotal
Operation and Maintenance
TOTAL
$320,000
$520,000
$4,840,000
$900,000
$200,000
$1,580,000
$8,360,000
Information not available
Information not available
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solld Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
210
-------
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND
LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Approximately $8.4 million was expended for
capital equipment, construction, and
engineering/technical support for soil
remediation, including $1,200,000 for
construction of the SVE system. However,
information was not provided to identify how
much was expended for O&M of the SVE
system, separate from the O&M for the total
remedial activity at Seymour. Therefore, a unit
cost for construction and O&M of the SVE
system was not calculated for this application.
The total cost for remedial activities at Seymour
was approximately $30,000,000, from inception
through 1997. This amount includes costs for
construction and operation of the SVE system,
bioremediation, sediment removal, and
groundwater pump-and-treat system.
Performance Observations and Lessons
Lear
No performance goals were established for soil
at this site, however design goals were
established for the total number of pore volumes
to be extracted and the number of pore volumes
to be extracted on a yearly basis. As of 1997,
approximately 430 pore volumes had been
extracted, as well as nearly 30,000 pounds of
VOCs. For 1993 and 1994 (the two years for
which a full year's worth of data are available),
the SVE system extracted 76 and 91 pore
volumes per year, respectively.
Analytical data from the vadose zone showed
that at start-up the vadose zone was in an
anaerobic state, with low concentrations of
oxygen and high concentrations of methane and
carbon dioxide. However, after several months
of system operation, the vadose zone became
aerobic, thus minimizing the decomposition of
DCE, TCE, and PCE.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
This application was unusual because the SVE
system was installed using horizontal wells in a very
shallow vadose zone (less than 10 ft) and was
covered with a multimedia cap to prevent short
circuiting of air flow in the subsurface.
REFERENCES
1. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 1989. Work Plan Pre-
design Investigation for a Vapor Extraction
System at the Seymour Site, Seymour, Indiana.
October 4.
2. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1994. Remedial Action
Report Soil Remediation Project Seymour Site
Seymour, Indiana. July.
3. U.S. EPA. 1987. Record of Decision.
Seymour, Indiana; Status: Second Remedial
Action - Final. September 25.
4. Geraghty & Miller. 1993. Long Term
Monitoring Plan for the Vapor Extraction
System at the Seymour Site, Seymour, Indiana,
Volume I of II.
5. Geraghty & Miller. 1994. Appendix II-
VES/OVA Monitoring Data. January.
6. Geraghty & Miller. 1995. Appendix III - VES
Monitoring Data. April.
7. Geraghty & Miller. 1996. Appendix II-
VES/OVA Monitoring Data. February.
8. Geraghty & Miller. 1997. Appendix II-
VES/OVA Monitoring Data. February.
9. Jeff Gore, EPA. 1997. Letter to Tom Sinski of
Tetra Tech EM Inc. Regarding Seymour
Recycling Corporation Superfund Site. May 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
211
-------
REFERENCES (CONT.)
• Seymour Recycling Corporation Superfund Site
10. Jeff Gore, EPA. 1997. Letter to Tom Sinski
of Tetra Tech EM Inc. Regarding Seymour
Site. June 11.
11. U.S. EPA. 1997. Five-Year Review Report,
Seymour Superfund Site, Seymour, Indiana.
March.
12. Jim Kilby, Monsanto. 1997. Facsimile to
Sandy Anagnostopoulos of Tetra Tech EM
Inc. Regarding Seymour Site. December 9.
13. Hydro Geo Chem. 1987. Technical
Evaluation Draft Report In Situ Air Stripping
of Volatile Organic Contaminants from the
Unsaturated Zone at the Seymour Recycling
Corporation Hazardous Waste Site,
Seymour, Indiana. September 4.
14. Sandy Anagnostopoulos, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
1997. Record of Telephone Conversation
with Jim Kilby, Monsanto, Regarding
Seymour SVE System. December 8.
15. Sandy Anagnostopoulos, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
1997. Record of Telephone Conversation
with Victoria Kramer, Geraghty & Miller,
Regarding Seymour, IN VES System.
December 8.
16. Jim Kilby, Monsanto. 1997. Seymour Site
Costs. To Sunitha Ravi. June 23.
17. U.S. EPA ITT Database. 1997. '96 Annual
Status Report. Detailed Site Information,
Seymour Recycling Corp. November.
18. Record of Telephone Conversation. 1998.
Between Richard J. Weisman, Tetra Tech
EM Inc. and Jeff Gore, EPA RPM, Feedback
and Additional Data for C&P Report on SVE
at Seymour. August 26.
19. Record of Telephone Conversation. 1998.
Between Richard J. Weisman, Tetra Tech EM
Inc. and Joe Moser, Additional Data for C&P
Report on SVE at Seymour. September 8.
Preparation of Analysis
This case study was prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was
provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA
Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
— D . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
t "A Technology Innovation Office
212
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at
OU1, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
213
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at
OU1, Shaw AFB, South Carolina
Site Name:
OU1, Shaw AFB
- POL yard
- Interim Response Area A
- Interim Response Area C
Location:
South Carolina
Contaminants:
BTEX, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Free Product (JP-4 fuel)
- 400,000 gallons of JP-4 in the
groundwater; the size of the
dissolved phase plume was
approximately 47 acres.
Period of Operation:
POL SVE system - December
1995 - ongoing (as of April 1998)
Interim Response Area A -
February 1992 -November 1996
Interim Response Area C - April
1995 - September 1997
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
IT Corporation
Additional Contacts:
U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command
Technology:
POL Yard - Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE)
- vacuum extraction wells, blowers,
an oil/water separator, and
thermal/catalytic oxidation units.
Interim Groundwater
Containment System - Area A
- Fuel recovery and a groundwater
treatment system. Recovery wells,
iron pretreatment, entrained oil
removal, solids removal, packed air
stripper. System upgraded in May
1997 with dual-phase recovery
pumps, oil/water separator,
equalization tank, and shallow-tray
air stripper units.
Interim Groundwater
Containment System - Area C
- Passive free product recovery
using one recovery well
Cleanup Authority:
Installation Restoration Program
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Fuel Spill
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE system to
remediate soil and two interim
response action systems to contain
groundwater
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 30,000 square feet (areal extent); sands and silts; confining clay layer at
70 to 80 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Groundwater
- 47 acre plume (dissolved JP-4 fuel)
214
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Containment at
OU1, Shaw AFB, South Carolina (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The operational objective of the SVE system was to remove contamination from the soil as cost-effectively as
possible to prevent contamination of surrounding soil and groundwater.
- The operational objectives of the Interim Response for Area A was to contain the plume by removing free
product as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of surrounding soil and
groundwater; the objective of dissolved phase containment was to operate efficiently over a relatively long period
of time.
- The operational objective of the Interim Response for Area C, free product source removal, was to remove
liquid-phase contamination as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to prevent continued contamination of
surrounding soil and groundwater.
Results:
- SVE at POL Yard - Total contaminant removed through 19 months of operation (July 1997) was 518,000 Ibs of
JP-4 fuel, with removal rates ranging from 2,560 to 94,800 Ibs/month. The system is still operating.
- Groundwater Containment Area A - Data on whether containment was achieved is not available. Total
contaminant removed after 4 years of operation (through January 1996) was 114,340 gallons of JP-4 free product
(monthly removal rates ranged from 0 to 9,980 gallons) and 171 gallons of dissolved phase JP-4 (monthly
removal rates ranged from 0 to 10.7 gallons).
- Groundwater Containment Area C - Total contaminant removal after 1.4 years (through August 1996) was
12,766 gallons of JP-4 free product (monthly removal rates ranged from 266 to 2,145 gallons).
Cost:
The report includes detailed data on O&M costs versus amount of contaminant removed and the effects of system
modifications on these costs.
- SVE system at POL Yard - Total O&M costs after 19 months of operation was $568,500 (monthly ranged from
$18,000 to $57,500). The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $1.09/lb
- Groundwater Containment Area A - Total O&M costs after 4 years of operation was $995,500 (monthly ranged
from $674 to $90,100). The average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $8.69/gallon of JP-4.
Groundwater Containment Area C - Total O&M cost was $33,000 (monthly ranged from $437 to $6,187). The
average O&M cost per unit of contaminant removed was $2.59/gallon of JP-4.
Description:
OU1 at Shaw AFB, located in South Carolina, includes four IRP sites. This report focuses on the OU1 POL yard
SVE system, the OU1 Area A Interim Response groundwater containment/treatment system, and the Interim
Response Area C groundwater containment system (free product recovery). Contamination at OU1 included JP-4
fuel and BTEX, with an estimated 400,000 gallons of free product present in the groundwater.
The SVE system at the POL yard included 30 vacuum extraction wells, four vacuum monitoring wells, three SVE
vacuum blowers, an oil/water separator, and two thermal/catalytic oxidation (CatOx) units. (Thermal oxidation
was used until December 1997; replaced by CatOx). In December 1996, five VEP wells from OU1 Area B were
connected to the system. The system was operated under 18 hi of Hg and data are provided through July 1997.
The Interim Groundwater Containment System at Area A included nine recovery wells, iron pretreatment,
entrained oil removal, solids removal, packed air stripper. Treated effluent was discharged to a sewer and data
are provided through November 1996. The Interim Groundwater Containment System at Area C included one
recovery well for free product recovery and data are provided through August 1996. In September 1997, the Area
C system was modified to a full-scale system. ,
215
-------
SVE and Groundwater
Containment at OU1, Shaw AFB
Site Background
Operable Unit 1 (OU1) is comprised of four IRP
sites (SS-04, OT-05, ST-14, and Area C). This
section focuses on the SVE system located at
the OU1 POL yard, the OU1 Area A Interim
Response groundwater containment/treatment
system, and the Interim Response Area C
groundwater containment system (product
recovery system) all operating within OU1. The
Area B VHP and Area C biosparging systems at
OU1 are not addressed in this report. Soil and
groundwater contamination within OU1 is
presented in Figures 9,10, and 11.
Contaminants in Soil
• The contaminant of concern at the POL yard
is JP-4 jet fuel with an estimated area of
30,000 sq. feet of contaminated soil.
Contaminants in Groundwater
• An estimated 400,000 gallons of JP-4 free
product and other petroleum hydrocarbons
are present in the groundwater at OU1.
• A dissolved phase plume extends over an
are of approximately 47 acres.
Lithology
• Soils are typically sand and silts, followed by
confining clay layer at approximately 70 to
80 feet bgs.
• Groundwater depths range from 20-40 feet
bgs atOU1.
Technologies at OU1
• Soil -The contaminated soil at the POL
yard (Area A) is being removed by an SVE
system.
• Groundwater - Groundwater containment
within OU1 (Area A) was performed by the
Interim Response OU1 Area A fuel recovery
and a groundwater treatment system.
• Groundwater - Area C interim response
passive free product recovery remedial
action system operated from 1995 to 1997.
SVE System Details
• The SVE system at the POL yard operates
at 18 inches of Hg.
• The SVE system consists of 30 vacuum
extraction wells; four vacuum monitoring
wells; three SVE vacuum blowers; an oil and
water separator; and two thermal Catalytic
Oxidation units.
• In December 1996, five VEP wells (used to
remediate free-phase product and
dissolved-phase groundwater) located in
Area B were connected to the SVE system.
• Extracted vapor was treated with Thermal
Oxidation (ThermOx) from December 1995
until December 1997. Catalytic Oxidation
(CatOx) is now used for vapor treatment.
• The system was shut down in August 1997
to evaluate the cause of the toxicity test
failure for the treated effluent.
Groundwater Containment System Details
• The Interim Response Area A groundwater
containment system consisted of nine
recovery wells and was designed to treat
approximately 75 gallons per minute (gpm)
of contaminated groundwater.
• The Interim Response Area A system
consisted of a product recovery system, a
groundwater recovery system, iron
pretreatment, entrained oil removal, solids
removal, a packed air stripper, and
discharged the treated effluent into the
sanitary sewer treatment system.
• The groundwater treatment system and free
product recovery system upgrade was
completed in May 1997.
• Free product recovery system was upgraded
with dual-phase recovery pumps, an
•oil/water separator, an equalization tank,
and two skid-mounted shallow tray air
stripper units.
216
-------
Legend
Hydropunch
C Soil Sample Boring
Hh Surface Water/Sediment Sample
- •• - Drainage Ditch
«• 10 Extent of Kerosene, Diesel,
and BTEX Contamination (ppm)
Source: Geraghty & Miller, July 1993, in ShawAFB Map (September 1994)
Figure 9. Soil Contamination OU1 POL Yard, Shaw AFB
217
-------
t^^, BTEX Concentrations (ppb)
(dashed where inferred)
Source; ShawAFB Map (July 1994)
Figure 10. Distribution of Total Dissolved BTEX Concentrations in the Shallow Aquifer at OU1,
Shaw AFB
218
-------
Location of
Area C Passive JP-4
/ Product Recovery System
Legend
Area of Liquid JP-4
1.34 Liquid Phase JP-4 Thickness (ft)
0 gOO 400
Scale In Feet
Source: Shaw AFB Map (July 1994)
Figure 11. Free Phase JP-4 Distribution in Groundwater at OU1, Shaw AFB
219
-------
• The interim response Area C passive
groundwater containment system consisted
of one recovery well (MW-634).
• The Area C system was modified to a full-
scale system with five extraction wells in
September 1997.
Operation Period
• The SVE system at the POL Yard began
operation in December 1995 and is still
operating.
• The Interim Response Area A system began
operation in 1989 and was shut down in
November 1996.
• The Interim Response Area C system begun
operation in April 1995 and was operated
until it was upgraded in September 1997.
Total Capital Costs
• The estimated capital costs for the SVE
system at the POL yard (Area A) was
$1,800,000.
• The estimated capital costs for the Interim
Response Area A groundwater treatment
system was $980,000.
• The estimated capital costs for the Interim
Response Area C system was $650,000.
Total O&M Costs
• The cumulative O&M costs for the SVE
system at the POL yard were $568,500
(January 1996 through July 1997).
• The cumulative O&M costs for the Interim
Response Area A JP-4 product recovery
system were $995,500 (February 1992
through April 1996).
• Total cumulative O&M costs for the Area C
system from June 1995 through August
1996 were $33,000.
Cost and Performance of SVE at OU1 POL Yard
SVE Operational Objectives
The objective of SVE is typically to remove
contamination in the soil as cost-effectively as
possible to prevent contamination of surrounding
soil and groundwater.
Cost for Operation
Figure 12 illustrates the curves of O&M costs for
the SVE at the OU1 POL yard. The monthly
O&M costs range from $18,000 to $57,500.
Total O&M costs after nineteen months of
operation were $568,500.
Contaminant Removal
Figure 13 illustrates curves of the contaminant
removal rates of JP-4 jet fuel for the SVE system
at the OU1 POL yard. Contaminant removal
rates ranged from 2,560 to 94,800 Ibs per
month. Total contaminant removal after nineteen
months of operation was 518,250 Ibs. of JP-4.
By August 1996, the curve representing the
cumulative removal rate began to flatten,
indicating that the removal rate was decreasing
and a system evaluation for reducing operating
cost was warranted.
In 1997, pulsing of the SVE system was
performed to reduce operating cost and
enhancing system performance (Shaw AFB,
1997). The cumulative removal rates began to
increase in January of 1997, indicating that the
pulsing of the SVE system increased system
performance.
After the system upgrade in May 1997, the curve
indicates an increase in cumulative and monthly
removal rates. This may be attributed to the
combined vapor flow from the addition of
extraction wells after the system upgrade.
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the SVE system at the OU1 POL yard.
Figure 14 illustrates the curve of the cumulative
O&M cost and the cumulative contaminant
removal. In the month of August 1996 the curve
started to steepen as the cost per unit of
contaminant removal rises. However, after
modification of the operations of the SVE system
in 1997 and the addition of Area B extraction
wells in December 1996 the curve flattened as
the cost per unit of contaminant removal
decreased.
220
-------
In December 1997, a CatOx unit was installed to
reduce vapor treatment cost. It is recommended
that the data be re-evaluated following operation
of CatOx unit to determine if the system
objectives are being met.
Figure 15 illustrates the curves of the monthly
and cumulative cost per unit of contaminant
removal over the operation time of the
technology. The monthly curve illustrates the
cost per unit of contaminant removal in each
month. The cumulative curve illustrates that the
average cost per unit of contaminant removal
after nineteen months of operation time
(September 1997) was $1.09/pound of JP-4.
Cost and Performance of OU1 Area A Groundwater Containment
Groundwater Containment Operational
Objectives
Groundwater containment systems are most
often used to protect downgradient areas
threatened by a contaminant plume. The
objective of the free product source removal is
typically to remove liquid-phase contamination
as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to
prevent continued contamination of surrounding
soil and groundwater, while the objective of
groundwater containment for dissolved phase
contaminants is to operate efficiently over a
relatively long period of time. The emphasis for
free product removal is that the mass of
contaminants are cost effectively removed,
where as the emphasis for dissolved phase
groundwater containment is whether
containment was cost effectively achieved.
Data on whether groundwater containment is
being achieved at each site is not available.
Therefore, this report will only present the
efficiency of contaminant removal for
groundwater containment sites. However, each
dissolved phase site should be evaluated to
determine if the plume is cost effectively being
contained.
Cost for Operation
Figure 16 illustrates the curves of the O&M costs
for the Area A groundwater containment system
at OU1. The monthly O&M costs range from
$674 to $90,100. Total O&M costs after four
years of operation were $995,500.
Contaminant Removal
Figures 17 and 18 illustrates curves of the
removal rates of dissolved JP-4 jet fuel and JP-4
free product at the Interim Response Area A
groundwater containment system at OU1.
Monthly removal rates of dissolved JP-4 fuel
ranged from 0 to 10.7 gallons. Monthly removal
rates of JP-4 free product ranged from 0 to
9,980 gallons. Total contaminant removal after
4 years of operation was 171 gallons of
dissolved JP-4 jet fuel and 114,340 gallons of
JP-4 free product. By January 1996, both curves
representing the cumulative removal rates had
flattened, indicating that the removal rates were
negligible. The Interim Response Area A system
was shut down in November 1996 because the
operating objectives were no longer being met.
In May 1997 the OU1 groundwater treatment
plant began treating extracted groundwater from
both Area A and Area C wells. The combined
Area A free product recovery system recovered
960 Ibs and 1,920 Ibs of free product during July
and August 1997, respectively. A total of 5.6 Ibs
of dissolved contaminants were removed during
these two months. The cumulative cost per
pound recovered for these two months was
$0.22/pound.
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 19 and 20 illustrate curves of the
relationship between the O&M costs and the
removal rates for the Interim Response Area A
groundwater containment system at OU1.
Figure 19 illustrates curves of the cumulative
O&M cost relative to contaminant removal. By
late 1995, the curve had steepened as the cost
per unit of contaminant removal rose
exponentially. The Interim Response Area A
system was shut down in November 1996
because the operating objectives were no longer
being met.
Figure 20 illustrates the monthly and cumulative
cost per unit of contaminant removal over the
operation time of the technology. The monthly
curve represents the cost per gallon of JP-4
removal in each month. The cumulative curve
illustrates that the average cost per unit of
contaminant removal was $8.69/gallon of JP-4
after 4 years of operation time.
221
-------
Cost and Performance of Groundwater Containment at OU1 Area C
Groundwater Containment with Free Product
Source Removal Operational Objectives
The objective of free product source removal is
typically to remove liquid-phase contamination
as quickly and cost-effectively as possible to
prevent continued contamination of surrounding
soil and groundwater. The emphasis for free
product removal is that the mass of
contaminants is cost effectively removed.
Cost for Operation
Figure 21 illustrates curves of the O&M costs for
the interim response groundwater containment
system at Site Area C. The monthly O&M costs
range from $437 to $6,187. Total O&M costs
after 1.4 years of operation were $33,000.
Contaminant Removal
Figure 22 illustrates the removal rate of JP-4
free product at the interim response
groundwater containment system at Area C.
Monthly removal rates of JP-4 free product
ranged from 266 to 2,145 gallons. Total
contaminant removal after 1.4 years (April 1995
through August 1996) of operation was 12,766
gallons of JP-4 free product. By August 1996,
the curve representing the cumulative removal
rate had not yet begun to flatten, indicating that
the removal rate was still adequate for this
system's performance and it's operational
objectives were being met.
In September 1997, the Area C system was
modified to a full scale system.
Correlation of Costs and Contaminant
Removal
Figures 23 and 24 illustrate the relationship
between the O&M costs and the removal rates
for the groundwater containment system at
Area C.
Figure 23 illustrates the cumulative O&M cost
relative to the cumulative contaminant removal.
As of August 1996, this curve had not
steepened. In August 1996, the passive
groundwater containment system was operating
efficiently for this system's performance and the
operational objectives were being met.
Figure 24 illustrates the monthly as well as the
cumulative cost per unit of contaminant removal
over the operation time of the technology. The
first curve illustrates the cost per gallon of JP-4
removal in each month. The cumulative curve
illustrates that the average cost per unit of
contaminant removal was $2.59/gallon of JP-4
after 1.4 years of operation time.
222
-------
$600,000 -,
$500,000 -
Figure 12
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
OU1 POL Yard, ShawAFB
Monthly O&M Costs
Cumulative O&M Costs
$57,573
Month
Pol_yard.xls; Costs
600,000 ,
500,000 -
400,000
8 300,000
o. 200,000
I
100,000
.0
Figure 13
Cumulative and Monthly JP-4 Product Recovered vs. Time
OU1 POL Yard, Shaw AFB
9504
Monthly Pounds Recovered
Cumulative Pounds Recovered
f 1
•5
o
Month
cp en o>
Pol_yard.xls; Mass Recovered
223
-------
$800,000
$500,000
$400,000
3
O $300,000
O $200.000 .
$100,000 .
$0
Figure 14
Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovered
OU1 POL Yard, Shaw AFB
100,000
200,000 300,000 400,000
Cumulative JP-4 Product Recovered
(Pounds)
500,000
600,000
Pol_yard.xls; Costs vs Mass
Figure 15
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Cost per Pound vs. Time
OU1 POL Yard, Shaw AFB
Cumulative Cost per Pound Recovered
Monthly Cost per Pound Recovered
Pol_yard.xls; Cost per Pound vs Time
224
-------
$1,200,000 ,
$1,000,000 -
$800,000 -
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
Figure 16
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
Dissolved JP-4 and JP-4 Free Product Combined
OU1 Area A, OU1, Shaw AFB
-Monthly Operation Cost ($)
-Cumulative Operation Cost ($)
$17,500
Nov-91 May-92
Nov-92 May-93 Nov-93 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95
Months
Rawou1.xls; O&M
180 ..
160 .
140 -
120 .
100
80
60
40
20
Figure 17
Monthly & Cumulative JP-4 Removal vs. Time
Dissolved Product (BTEX)
OU1 Area A, Shaw AFB
-Volume of Dissolved Phase Removed per month (Gallons/month)
- Cumulative Volume of Dissolved Phase Removed (Gallons)
1.29
Oct-95
Rawoul; diss vol vs. time
225
-------
140,000
120.000
100.000
Figure 18
Monthly & Cumulative Volume of JP-4 Recovered vs. Time
OU1 Area A, Shaw AFB
Free Product
-Volume of Free Product Recovered per month (Gallons/month)
-Cumulative Volume of Free Product Recovered (Gallons)
Dec-91 May-92 Nov-92 May-93 Nov-93 May-94 Nov-94 May-95 Nov-95
Months
Rawou1.xls; volvs.time
o
1
51,200,000
$1,000,000 .
$800,000.
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000-
20,000
Figure 19
Cumulative O&M costs vs. Volume Recovered
Dissolved and Free Product
OU1 Area A, Shaw AFB
40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Gallons of Dissolved and Free Product Recovered
120,000
140,000
RawouLxIs; cum & vs vol
226
-------
$100,000 ,
$10,000 :
1
I $1,000
$100
$10 :
$1
$35,000 ,
$30,000 -
$25,000 -
$20,000
5 $15,000 -
$10,000 -
$5,000 -
$0.00
Figure 20
Monthly & Cumulative O&M costs per Volume vs. Time
Dissolved and Free Product Combined (JP-4)
OU1 Area A, Shaw AFB
>—Monthly Cost/Gallon of Contaminant Removed ($/gal)
i—Cumulative Cost/Gallon of Contaminant Removed ($/gal)
zero gallons recovered these month
Time
Figure 21
Monthly and Cumulative O&M Costs vs. Time
OU1 Area C, Shaw AFB
—•—O&M Cumulative Cost
-e-O&M Monthly Cost
Rawoul .xls; $ per gal vs time
$952.34
$3,342.72 $2,386.76
^*~^
"$1,610.08
! 1
in in to to to
O> OJ O) O5 O>
Month
-------
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000.
6,000.
2 4,000 J
2,000.
Figure 22
Cumulative and Monthly JP-4 Product Recovered vs. Time
OU1 Area C, Shaw AFB
-Cumulative Gallons Recovered
-Gallons Recovered/Month
Month
* !
Revss15.xls; Cumulative Gallons Recovered
$35.000 T
SO
Figure 23
Cummulative O&M Cost vs. Cummulative JP-4 Recovered
OU1 Area C, Shaw AFB
2,000
4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Cummulative JP-4 Product Recovered (Gallons)
Note: Initial O/M costs of $1,359.27 were allocated to the months of June and July 1995.
12,000 14,000
Revss15.xls; Cumm OM vs Recovered
228
-------
$9.00 ,
$8.00-
S7.00.
Figure 24
Monthly and Cummulative O&M Cost Per Gallon of JP-4 Recovered vs. Time
OU1 Area C, Shaw AFB
- Monthly Cost Per Gallon Recovered
-Cumulative Cost Per Gallon Recovered
to « 10 in w
en CD CD en CD
I I I * |
Month
Note: Initial 0/M costs of $1,359.27 were allocated to the months of June and July 1995.
Revss15.xls; Cost per Gallo
229
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Cost and Performance Data Tables
230
-------
BTEX/JP4 REMOVAL RATES VIA AN SVE SYSTEM
OU1 POLYARD
SHAWAFB
DATE
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
Jul-97
#OF
DAYS
0
31
59
90
120
151
181
212
243
273
304
334
365
396
424
455
485
516
546
577
MONTHLY
BTEX/JP4
REMOVED
(Gallons)
0
14812
4114
4997
2900
872
1405
1485
893
677
3819
3105
400
7233
4145
400
400
6454
13597
9269
Monthly
Pounds
Recovered
94796.8
26329.6
31980.8
18560
5580.8
8992
9504
5715.2
4332.8
24441.6
19872
2560
46291.2
26528
2560
2560
41305.6
87020.8
59321.6
CUMM.
REMOVED
(Gallons)
0
14812
18926
23923
26823
27695
29100
30585
31478
32155
35974
39079
39479
46712
50857
51257
51657
58111
71708
80977
Cumulative
Pounds
Recovered
94796.8
121126.4
153107.2
171667.2
177248
186240
195744
201459.2
205792
230233.6
250105.6
252665.6
298956.8
325484.8
328044.8
330604.8
371910.4
458931.2
518252.8
ACTUAL
BTEX/JP4
REMAINING
91780
76968
72854
67857
64957
64085
62680
61195
60302
59625
55806
52701
84460
77227
73082
72682
72282
65828
52231
42962
Monthly
O&M Costs
$53,187
$34,862
$28,932
$26,825
$18,034
$56,202
$23,904
$27,231
$40,873
$24,124
$28,528
$12,041
$29,903
$27,013
$11,953
$3,246
$26,772
$37,271
$57,573
ACT. MONTHLY
COST/GALLON
$3.59
$8.47
$5.79
$9.25
$20.68
$40.00
$16.10
$30.49
$60.37
$6.32
$9.19
$30.10
$4.13
$6.52
$29.88
$8.12
$4.15
$2.74
$6.21
Cumulative O&M
Costs
$53,187
$88,049
$116,982
$143,806
$161,840
$218,042
$241,946
$269,176
$310,049
$334,173
$362,701
$374,742
$404,645
$431,658
$443,61 1
$446,857
$473,629
$510,900
$568,473
ACTUAL
CUMULATIVE
COST/GALLON
$3.59
$4.65
$4.89
$5.36
$5.34
$7.49
$7.91
$8.55
$9.64
$9.29
$9.28
$9.49
$8.66
$8.49
$8.65
$8.65
$8.15
$7.12
$7.02
Monthly
Cost per
Pound
Recovered
$0.56
$1.32
$0.90
$1.45
$3.23
$6.25
$2.52
$4.76
$9.43
$0.99
$1.44
$4.70
$0.65
$1.02
$4.67
$1.27
$0.65
$0.43
$0.97
Cumulative
Cost per
Pound
Recovered
$0.56
$0.73
$0.76
$0.84
$0.91
$1.17
$1.24
$1.34
$1.51
$1.45
$1.45
$1.48
$1.35
$1.33
$1.35
$1.35
$1.27
$1.11
$1.10
231
-------
JP-4 Product Recovery, Fr»»-ProductfDI«»olved Pha»» Pumping with Air supping
OUIArnA
Shaw Air Force Bast
Data of Product
Recovery
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Oct-92
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
Jul-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
Total Volume ol
contaminants
Recovered per
month
(Gallons/month
9,979.00
3,221.29
2,091.40
1.422.33
189.96
336.31
193.94
145.79
196.00
646.27
1,312.42
2.10
145.99
0.00
536.00
1,152.75
354.17
276.91
166.07
3,614.04
8,781.30
9,744.16
8,495.31
5,503.46
8,292.47
8,029.27
6,813.40
7,350.71
2,866.25
9,616.33
5,287.97
3,059.43
0.00
235.23
819.57
1,407.37
331.02
299.74
180.94
615.51
130.51
4.42
1.19
168.29
141.92
350.56
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cumulative Tola
Volume of
contaminants
recovered
(Gallons)
9,979.00
13,200.29
15,291.69
16.714.02
16,903.98
17,240.29
17.434.23
17,580.02
17,776.02
18,422.29
19,734.71
19,736.81
19,882.80
19,882.80
20,418.80
21,571.55
21,925.72
22,202.63
22,368.70
25,982.74
34,764.04
44,508.20
53,003.51
58,506.97
66,799.44
74,828.71
81,642.11
88,992.82
91,859.07
101,475.40
106,763.37
109,822.80
109,822.80
110,058.03
110,877.60
112,284.97
112,615.99
112,915.73
113,096.67
113,712.18
113,842.69
113,847.11
113,848.30
114,016.59
114,158.51
114,509.07
114,511.07
114,511.07
114,511.07
114,511.07
114,511.07
Monthly
Operation Cost
(5)
$17.500.00
$18,797.00
$17,924.00
$17.500.00
517,718.00
$32,797.00
$17,726.00
$17,719.00
$17,719.00
$17,910.00
$20,477.00
$17,828.00
$17,719.00
$90,051.00
$16,300.00
$14,016.00
$29,199.00
$17,061.00
$13,958.00
$56,606.00
$16,369.00
$16,793.00
$14,162.00
$15,451.00
$23,975.00
$17,142.00
$17,959.00
$17,850.00
$17,949.00
$17,696.00
$17,691.00
$16,600.00
$17,682.00
$18,488.00
$18,381.00
$17,609.00
$18,528.00
$18,407.00
$17,850.00
$20,128.00
$17,625.00
$17,591.00
$19,387.00
$17,722.00
$17,722.00
$17,438.00
$17,722.00
$17,722.00
$8,682.00
$674.00
Cumulative
Operation Cost
($>
50.00
$17,500.00
$36,297.00
$54,221.00
$71,721.00
$89,439.00
$122,236.00
$139,962.00
$157,681.00
$175,400.00
$193,310.00
$213,787.00
$231,615.00
$249,334.00
$339,385.00
$355,685.00
$369,701.00
$398,900.00
$415,961.00
$429,919.00
$486,525.00
$502,894.00
$519,687.00
$533,849.00
$549,300.00
$573,275.00
$590,417.00
$608,376.00
$626,226.00
$644,175.00
$661,871.00
$679,562.00
$696,162.00
$713,844.00
$732,332.00
$750,713.00
$768,322.00
$786,850.00
$805,257.00
$823,107.00
$843,235.00
$860,860.00
$878,451.00
$897,838.00
$915,560.00
$933,282.00
$950,720.00
$968,442.00
$986,164.00
$994,846.00
$995,520.00
Monthly
Cost/Gallon of
Contaminant
Removed ($/gal)
$5.43
$8.99
$12.60
$92.12
$52.68
$169.11
$121.59
$90.40
$27.42
$13.65
$9,750.95
$122.12
$168.01
$14.14
$39.57
$105.45
$102.73
$3.86
$6.45
$1.68
$1.98
$2.57
$1.86
$2.99
$2.52
$2.44
$6.23
$1.87
$3.35
$5.78
$75.17
$22.56
$13.06
$53.20
$61.81
$101.73
$29.00
$154.23
$3,987.56
$14,782.35
$115.20
$124.87
$50.55
$8,719.00
Cumulative
Coil/Gallon of
Contaminant
Removed (S/gal)
$1.33
$2.37
$3.24
$4.24
$5.19
$7.01
$7.96
$8.87
$9.52
$9.80
$10.83
$11.65
$12.54
$16.62
$16.49
$16.86
$17.97
$18.60
$16.55
$14.00
$11.30
$9.80
$9.12
$8.22
$7.66
$7.23
$6.84
$6.82
$6.35
$6.20
$6.19
$6.34
$6.49
$6.60
$6.69
$6.82
$6.97
$7.12
$7.24
$7.41
$7.56
$7.72
$7.87
$8.02
$8.15
$8.30
$8.46
$8.61
$8.69
$8.69
Influent
Concentration of
BTEX(ugfl-)
651
3224
1943
4598
3158
3873
3194
4304
5080
4190
6351
5084
4904
3012
1883
1637
4968
4459
4802
3436
4735
3731
3701
3996
4730
1837
2717
4101
2472
3796
4141
3048
4127
4316
3477
3127
4143
3560
725
1017
622
365
3254
232
-------
JP-4 Product Recovery, Free-Product
OU1 Area A
Shaw Air Force Base
Date of Product
Recovery
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Sep-92
Oct-92
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
Jul-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
Volume of Free
Product
Recovered per
month
(Gallons/month)
9,979
3,220
2,087
1,420
189
335
193
145
195
643
1,310
0
145
0
536
1,149
350
275
165
3,607
8,772
9,736'
8,490
5,498
8,286
8,024
6,805
7,340
2,864
9,612
5,282
3,055
0
230
810
1,401
325
294
177
610
130
0
0
166
140
350
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
Volume of Free
Product
Recovered
(Gallons)
9,979
13,199
15,286
16,706
16,895
17,230
17,423
17,568
17,763
18,406
19,716
19,716
19,861
19,861
20,397
21,546
21,896
22,171
22,336
25,943
34,715
44,451
52,941
58,439
66,725
74,749
81 ,554
88,894
91,758
101,370
106,652
109,707
109,707
109,937
110,747
112,148
112,473
112,767
112,944
113,554
113,684
113,684
113,684
113,850
113,990 ,
114,340
114,340
114,340
114,340
114,340
114,340
233
-------
JP-4 Product Recovery, Dissolved Phase
OU1 Area A
Shaw Air Force Base
Date of Product
Recovery
Feb-92
Mar-92
Apr-92
May-92
Jun-92
Jul-92
Aug-92
Sep-92
Oct-92
Nov-92
Dec-92
Jan-93
Feb-93
Mar-93
Apr-93
May-93
Jun-93
Jul-93
Aug-93
Sep-93
Oct-93
Nov-93
Dec-93
Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
Volume of
Dissolved Phase
Removed per
month
(Gallons/month)
1.29
4.40
2.33
0.96
1.31
0.94
0.79
1.00
3.27
2.42
2.10
0.99
0.00
0.00
3.75
4.17
1.91
1.07
7.04
9.30
8.16
5.31
5.46
6.47
5.27
8.40
10.71
2.25
4.33
5.97
4.43
0.00
5.23
9.57
6.37
6.02
5.74
3.94
5.51
0.51
4.42
1.19
2.29
1.92
0.56
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass of
Dissolved Phase
(JP-4) Removed
per month
(Ibs/month)*
8.26
28.16
14.91
6.14
8.38
6.02
5.06
6.40
20.93
15.49
13.44
6.34
0.00
0.00
24.00
26.69
12.22
6.85
45.06
59.52
52.22
33.98
34.94
41.41
33.73
53.76
68.54
14.40
27.71
38.21
28.35
0.00
33.47
61.25
40.77
38.53
36.74
25.22
35.26
3.26
28.29
7.62
14.66
12.29
3.58
12.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cumulative
Volume of
Dissolved Phase
Removed
(Gallons)
0.00
1.29
5.69
8.02
8.98
10.29
11.23
12.02
13.02
16.29
18.71
20.81
21.80
21.80
21.80
25.55
29.72
31.63
32.70
39.74
49.04
57.20
62.51
67.97
74.44
79.71
88.11
98.82
101.07
105.40
111.37
115.80
115.80
121.03
130.60
136.97
142.99
148.73
152.67
158.18
158.69
163.11
164.30
166.59
168.51
169.07
171.07
171.07
171.07
171.07
171.07
Cumulative Mass
of Dissolved
Phase (JP-4)
Removed (Ibs)*
8.26
36.42
51.33
57.47
65.86
71.87
76.93
83.33
104.26
119.74
133.18
139.52
139.52
139.52
163.52
190.21
202.43
209.28
254.34
313.86
366.08
400.06
435.01
476.42
510.14
563.90
632.45
646.85
674.56
712.77
741.12
741.12
774.59
835.84
876.61
915.14
951.87
977.09
1,012.35
1,015.62
1,043.90
1,051.52
1,066.18
1,078.46
1,082.05
1,094.85
1,094.85
1,094.85
1,094.85
1,094.85
•The density of JP-4 used is 6.4 Ib/gal at 60F density of JP-4 6.40
(U.S. EPA, 1996, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42) - Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th Ed.)
234
-------
JP-4 Free Product Recovery
at OU1 Area C
Shaw Air Force Base
Cost Per Gallon For Free Product Recovery Interim Remedial Action System At MW-634 O&M Cost
Month
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96
Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Gallons
Recovered/Month
0
0
575
1,097
266
1,257
1,011
1,180
384
602
2,145
734
746
363
589
709
1,108
Cumulative
Gallons
Recovered
0
0
575
1,672
1,938
3,195
4,206
5,386
5,770
6,372
8,517
9,251
9,997
10,360
10,949
11,658
12,766
O&M
Monthly
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$952.34
$437.46
$1,916.60
$2,739.40
$1,628.10
$1,025.80
$1,096.60
$1,706.87
$3,230.29
$6,187.00
$2,671.30
$1,610.08
$3,342.72
$2,096.85
$2,386.76
O&M
Cumulative
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$952.34
$1,389.80
$3,306.40
$6,045.80
$7,673.90
$8,699.70
$9,796.30
$11,503.17
$14,733.46
$20,920.46
$23,591.76
$25,201.84
$28,544.56
$30,641.41
$33,028.17
Monthly
Cost Per
Gallon
Recovered
$0.00
$0.00
$1.66
$0.40
$7.21
$2.18
$1.61
$0.87
$2.86
$2.84
$1.51
$8.43
$3.58
$4.44
$5.68
$2.96
$2.15
Cumulative
Cost Per
Gallon
Recovered
$0.00
$0.00
$1.66
$0.83
$1.71
$1.89
$1.82
$1.62
$1.70
$1.81
$1.73
$2.26
$2.36
$2.43
$2.61
$2.63
$2.59
Note: Initial O/M costs of $1359.27 were allocated to the months of June and July 1995.
235
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
236
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania
237
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania
Site Name:
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
Location:
Upper Merion Township,
Pennsylvania
Contaminants:
Volatile Organic Compounds:
- 1,2,3-trichloropropane
- Benzene
- Trichloroethene
- Tetrachloroethene
Period of Operation:
November 1988 - September 1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
John S. Miller
On-Site Coordinator
Terra Vac
P.O. Box 2199
Princeton, NJ 08543-2199
(215)354-8611
PRP Contact:
Kenneth Dupuis
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.
P.O. Box 71
Toms River, NJ 08754
(732)914-2810
Technology:
Soil Vapor Extraction
- 80 vapor extraction (VE) wells, 9
dual extraction (RD) wells, and 7
bedrock extraction wells connected
to a central processing plant
- Depth of VE wells- <10 feet
(approximate depth to bedrock)
- Vapors treated using activated
carbon adsorption
- Water extracted using the RD
wells was treated by ah- stripping
and carbon polishing
- Design air flow rate- 15,000 scfm
at 13 inches of mercury (Hg)
vacuum
- More than 14 enhancements were
made to the system including
varying the number and types of
wells, heating the soil using several
techniques, destroying
contaminants in situ, and physically
creating new flow paths
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD date: 12/21/84
-RevisedROD: 3/31/88
- Revised ROD: 7/20/96
Remedial Project Manager:
Eugene Dennis
SARA Special Site Section
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)566-3202
Waste Source: Spills and waste
disposal in lagoons
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 30,000 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: SVE application
nvolving more than 14
enhancements
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified cleanup goals of 0.05 mg/kg each for 1,2,3-trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and
etrachloroethene.
In addition, the cleanup goals were to be achieved within 26 months after startup of the SVE system. If cleanup
;oals had not been met within the first year of operation of the SVE system, supplemental measures were to
mplemented to improve the vacuum extraction process.
238
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction at Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania (continued)
Results:
- The system initially removed about 10,000 Ibs/month of VOC. However, between September and December
1989, extraction rates decreased to 2,000 Ib/month. In response, Terra Vac implemented 14 enhancements in an
attempt to improve system performance.
- While many of the SVE system enhancements (varying the number and types of wells in the system, heating the
soil, destroying contaminants in situ, and physically creating new flow paths as a means to improve the diffusion
rate) produced short-term improvements in the extraction rate, in all cases, the results were only temporary. (The
report includes a detailed summary of all enhancements and the results of each).
- Results of soil borings taken after 32 months of operation showed that concentrations of 1,2,3-
trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene remained above the cleanup goals. In a number
of cases, the constituent concentrations reported were higher than pre-remediation concentrations.
- EPA subsequently determined that the SVE system was incapable of meeting the cleanup goals in a timely and
cost effective manner, and amended the ROD to change the remedy to a wet soil cover.
Cost:
- The total actual cost for the SVE system was $43.4 million, including approximately $3.5 million for design
and pilot studies, and $39.9 million in treatment costs, including construction and operation and maintenance
costs.
Description:
Tyson's Dump Superfund site is a four-acre, abandoned septic waste and chemical waste disposal site reported to
have operated from 1960 to 1970 in a sandstone quarry. Franklin P. Tyson and Fast Pollution Treatment, Inc.
used lagoons on the eastern and western portions of the site to dispose of industrial, municipal, and chemical
wastes. Results of soil samples from the lagoons taken during the Remedial Investigation indicated the presence
of VOCs at concentrations that exceeded 500 mg/kg. A ROD was issued in 1984, specifying excavation and off-
site disposal of contaminated soils. In response to the results of a study submitted by the RPs, EPA negotiated a
partial consent decree to implement SVE and issued a revised ROD in 1988.
The initial design of the SVE system at Tyson's Dump included 80 vapor extraction wells, nine dual extraction
wells, and seven bedrock extraction wells connected to a manifold that led to a central processing plant. Most of
the VE wells were drilled to a depth of less than 10 feet (approximate depth to bedrock). Extracted vapors were
treated by activated carbon adsorption, with regeneration and solvent recovery on site. Water extracted using the
dual extraction wells was treated by air stripping and carbon polishing. VOC extraction rates for the system
initally were about 10,000 Ib/month. However, by December of 1989 the extraction rate decreased to about
2,000 Ibs/month. The results of additional investigations performed by Terra Vac identified several conditions at
the site that were limiting the diffusion rate of VOCs and adversely impacting the performance of the SVE
system, including greater variation hi the permeability, porosity, particle size, and moisture content of the soils
than identified during previous investigations. In addition, DNAPL was found to be present over a larger area of
the site than had previously been identified. In response, Terra Vac implemented 14 enhancements in an attempt
to improve system performance. Many of the SVE system enhancements produced short-term improvements in
the extraction rate. However, in all cases, the results were only temporary. After 32 months of operation, sample
results showed that concentrations of 1,2,3-trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene
remained above the cleanup goals. EPA subsequently determined that the SVE system was incapable of meeting
the cleanup goals in a timely and cost effective manner, and amended the ROD to change the remedy to a wet
soil cover.
239
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
identifying Information
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site, Upper Merion
Township, Pennsylvania
CERCLIS ID No: PAD980692024
Record of Decision (ROD) Date:
December 21, 1984
March 31,1988 (revised ROD)
July 20,1996 (revised ROD)
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Technology: Soil Vapor Extraction
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? No
Period of Operation: November 1988 to
September 1996
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: The 1984 ROD indicated that the
estimated amount of contaminated soil was
30,000 cubic yards (yd3). [13]
Background Information M]
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Spill; surface
disposal area; surface impoundment/lagoon.
Site History: Tyson's Dump (Tyson's)
Superfund site is a four-acre, abandoned septic
waste and chemical waste disposal site reported
to have operated from 1960 to 1970 in a
sandstone quarry. Franklin P. Tyson and Fast
Pollution Treatment, Inc. (FPTI) used lagoons on
the eastern and western portions of the site (east
lagoon and west lagoon) to store industrial,
municipal, and chemical wastes. Various
locations throughout the site were also used for
the disposal of septic tank wastes and chemical
sludges.
In 1973, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) ordered the
owners of the site to close the facility. At that
time, although some ponded water was
removed, the owners did not arrange for removal
of contaminated soils.
In January 1983, EPA investigated an
anonymous citizen complaint about conditions at
the Tyson's site and subsequently determined
that immediate removal measures were
required. In March 1983, EPA initiated a
removal action which included the construction
of a leachate collection and air stripping system,
installation of drainage controls and a cover on
the site, and erection of a fence around the
lagoon area.
Between January 1983 and August 1984, EPA
conducted a remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) in the area of the lagoons.
Samples of soil from the lagoons indicated the
presence of several volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) at concentrations that exceeded 50
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
A ROD was issued in 1984, specifying
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated
soils. In June 1987, the responsible parties
(RPs) submitted the results of a comprehensive
feasibility study (CFS) recommending SVE as an
alternative remedy. The RPs had performed an
SVE pilot study in November 1986 and
submitted the results as part of the CFS.
According to the RPs, the CFS also indicated
that the contaminants in the bedrock underlying
the lagoons would be a source of continuing
contamination of the backfilled soils after
excavation. In addition, the CFS stated that the
remedy selected in the 1984 ROD would be of
limited effectiveness without the installation of a
barrier to limit upward movement of
contamination from the underlying bedrock.
In July 1987, the RPs submitted a proposal to
EPA for cleanup of the on-site lagoon areas,
upgrading of the leachate collection system, and
cleanup of the tributary sediments.
EPA negotiated a partial consent decree to
implement SVE and issued a revised ROD as
discussed below.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>- Q « Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr/\ Technology Innovation Office
240
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (CONTJ)
Regulatory Context [1, 2, 7,13]
In December 1984, EPA issued an initial ROD
for the site that specified the following remedial
actions:
Excavation of contaminated soils and
disposal at a landfill permitted under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA)
- Upgrading of the existing air-stripping
facility, which had been constructed as
part of the removal measures, to treat
leachate, shallow groundwater, and
surface runoff encountered during
excavation
Excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated sediments in the tributary
that receives effluent from the existing
air stripper
In March 1988, EPA revised the ROD to change
the remedy for the lagoons from excavation to
SVE. The revised ROD, signed in March 1988,
did not alter the remedy with respect to air
stripping, leachate treatment, or remediation of
contaminated sediments.
EPA subsequently determined that the SVE
system was incapable of meeting the cleanup
levels that had been specified in the revised
ROD in a "timely and cost effective manner."
According to EPA, the ability of the SVE system
to efficiently remove the remaining contamination
had decreased significantly beginning in 1993.
In July 1996, EPA issued a ROD Amendment
changing the remedy from SVE to placement of
a wet soil cover over the lagoons. According to
the amendment, the wet soil cover met the
remedial action objectives. In addition, the wet
soil cover provided effective long-term control of
VOC emissions.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: RP Lead
Oversight: Federal
PRP Contact:
Kenneth Dupuis
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation
P.O. Box 71
Toms River, NJ 08754
Telephone: (732) 914-2810
Remedial Project Manager:
Eugene Dennis*
SARA Special Site Section
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215)566-3202
State Contact:
J. Thomas Leaver
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program
16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
Telephone: (717)783-2300
Treatment System Vendor:
John S. Miller
On-Site Coordinator
Terra Vac
P.O. Box2199
Princeton, NJ 08543-2199
Telephone: (215)354-8611
* Primary contact for this application.
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification T3.131
Type of Matrix: Soil
Geology: The natural soils at the site consisted
primarily of a less-than-one-foot layer of topsoil,
underlain to a depth of six to eight feet by clayey
sand to sandy silt. That layer generally was
underlain by fine to medium, slightly silty
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
241
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
sand with some gravel, extending to 12 feet in
depth. Shallow bedrock in the vicinity of the site
was highly fractured with outcroppings of
bedrock throughout the site.
In 1991, during installation of horizontal wells in
the western portion of the east lagoon, a layer of
rock was discovered. The layer varied in depth
from 7 to 12 feet below the ground surface (bgs).
The layer was estimated to be 200 feet wide and
approximately one to two feet thick.
Matrix Characteristics That Affected Cost or
Performance of Treatment f3.13]
Limited information on matrix characteristics that
affected cost or performance was available for
this application. The soil at the site was
classified as clayey sand to silt (6 to 8 ft. bgs)
and slightly silty sand (8 to 12 ft. bgs).
Nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) was present at
the site.
Contaminant Characterization p. 7]
Primary Contaminant Groups: VOCs
The 1988 revised ROD identified the following
four contaminants of concern (these
contaminants were selected to represent the
presence of all VOCs at the site): 1,2,3-
trichloropropane, benzene, trichloroethene, and
tetrachloroethene. Soil sampling was conducted
in 1988 to determine the initial mass and
distribution of contaminants in the former lagoon
areas. Soil samples were collected from 65 well
borings, at 5 to 10 feet intervals, for a total of 82
samples from the east lagoon and 63 samples
from the west lagoon.
Concentrations in the soil for the four
contaminants of concern ranged from non-detect
to maximum concentrations exceeding 250,000
mg/kg. Table 2 presents a summary of the
range of average concentrations of those
contaminants.
Table 2: Summary of the Average Concentration of Contaminants of Concern in the 65
Well Borings -1988 Sampling [7]
Contaminant of Concern
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
No. of Well Borings by Concentration
Non-Detect
21
55
56
33
< 50 mg/kg
15
10
8
19
50 to 500 mg/kg
9
0
1
7
-, > 500 mg/kg
20
0
0
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CDA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
C« M Technology Innovation Office
242
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Figures 1 and 2 show the estimated percentage
of organic mass located in each "soil block" in
the east and west lagoons. The mass of VOCs
in the soil blocks was estimated using the
average concentration in a block (based on the
average contaminant concentration of the soil
borings within that block) (mg/kg), the surface
area of the block (ft?), depth of the block (ft,
determined from each boring), and density of the
soil (Ib/ft3, assumed to be 110 Ib/ft3). The mass
of each organic compound in the soil was
determined using a similar formula.
As shown in Figure 1, the VOC contaminant
mass was concentrated in the western portion of
the east lagoon. Figure 2 shows that the VOC
contaminant mass in the west lagoon was
concentrated in the eastern portion. An estimate
of mass of the individual compounds indicated
that 1,2,3-trichloro-propane accounted for 84
percent of the total mass of VOCs.
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM ;
Primary Treatment Technology
Soil vapor extraction
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Carbon adsorption of off-gas
System Description and Operation
Pilot Study [1,2]
In November 1986, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, the
primary RP for the site, performed a pilot study
of an on-site soil vapor extraction (SVE)
process. The pilot study initially operated for
fewer than 10 days. The pilot study resumed
operation in May, 1987 and operated for three
weeks.
Description and Operation of System
[2, 8,12,14]
The initial design of the SVE system at Tyson's
included approximately 80 vapor extraction
wells, 9 dual extraction (RD) wells, and 7
bedrock extraction wells connected to a manifold
that led to a central processing plant. Figures 3
and 4 show the locations of the wells at the east
and west lagoons at Tyson's. Most of the VE
wells were drilled to a depth of less than 10 feet
(approximate depth to bedrock).
The processing plant contained two 700-
horsepower (hp) vacuum units and two 250-hp
vacuum units. Extracted vapors were treated by
activated carbon adsorption, with regeneration
and solvent recovery on site. Recovered solvent
was sent off site for destruction.
Support equipment for the system included two
air coolers, boilers, a chemical feed system, a
fuel oil system, on-line automatic gas
chromatograph (GC) analyzers, and an electrical
distribution system. The system also was
equipped with automated ambient air monitoring,
explosive vapor monitoring, and fire suppression
systems.
The design air flow rate was approximately
15,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) at
13 inches of mercury (Hg) vacuum. At the
blowers, the vapors were pressurized to two
pounds per square inch (psi), cooled to 100
degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and passed through a
series of 7,000-pound carbon vessels prior to
release to the atmosphere. Water extracted
using the RD wells was treated by air stripping
and carbon polishing.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
243
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Figure 1. Percentage of Organic Mass by Soil Block Area for
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site - East Lagoon, 1988 Data [Modified
from 17]
EXPLANATION
O SoaWcll(VE)
rjBa*Wt«(RE)
• ExIrjctcnWell
p=[0eplli to Bedrock 3 fen or IKS
£", VeoMaltaianoyorOuarryHigtwjJI
SileSjctiiily Fines
Soil Blocks Ull&ed to Mass Dellrmlniliorts
• Additional Wens Inslalled by Teira-Vac Between
29 September and 11 October 198B.
Figure 2. Percentage of Organic Mass by Soil Block Area for
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site -West Lagoon, 1988 Data [Modified
from 17]
x^^-~~~—-
EXPLANATION
O So)Wt«(VE)
^7 Dull function Rock Wdl(R£)
|—| Oiplti to Bedrock 3 Fill or Ltss
£3 VtgilalionmoVorOuinyHWwH
-»-« SiteSscurityFencs
-JjJ Soil Blocks U6E20J in VjssDelerrrMMns
N
Scale In Fsol
(Approximate)
Additional Wells Inslalled by Terra-Vac Between
29 September and 11 October 1908.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
244
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Figure 3. Location of Wells in East Lagoon at the Tyson's Dump
Superfund Site, Initial Design [Modified from 17]
' A (RD) DUAL EXTRACTION ROCKWELL
EJ BEDROCK AT SUFACE TO 3FT
(RE)ROCK O (VE) SOIL WELL
TREES » " FENCES
ADDITIONAL EXTRACTION WELLS
ROAD
Figure 4. Location of Wells in West Lagoon at the Tyson's Dump
Superfund Site, Initial Design [Modified from 17]
A (RD) DUAL EXTRACTION ROCK WELL
BEDROCK AT SUFACE TO 3FT
> ADDITIONAL EXTRACTION WELLS
(RE)ROCK
TREES
O (VE) SOIL WELL
FENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
245
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
The system began full-scale operation on
November 14,1988. For the first ten months of
operation, the extraction rate for VOCs ranged
from 2,000 Ibs/month to over 10,000 Ibs/month
(September 1989). However, between
September and December 1989, the extraction
rate decreased to about 2,000 Ibs/month. The
results of additional investigations performed by
Terra Vac identified several conditions at the site
that were limiting the diffusion rate of VOCs and
adversely impacting the performance of the SVE
systems. These conditions included greater
variation in the permeability, porosity, particle
size, and moisture content of the soils than
identified during previous investigations; the
presence of DNAPL over a larger area of the
site; the presence of tar in 22 wells at the site
and perched water at various locations at the
site.
As described below, Terra Vac performed a
number of modifications to the SVE system in an
effort to enhance system performance. These
included varying the number and types of wells
in the system, heating the soil, destroying
contaminants in situ, and physically creating new
flow paths as a means to improve the diffusion
rate.
Enhancements to Mitigate the Effects of
Newly-Discovered Site Conditions [8]
The following enhancements were made to the
SVE system:
• Installation of additional wells
• Steam injection
Installation of slurp wells
• Decane treatment
• Cover over east lagoon
• Hot air injection
• Increased vacuum pressure
• Use of selectively screened wells
• Pressurized air injection
Installation of horizontal wells
• Electrical soil heating-Electrovac™
• Removal of ineffective wells
• Geomixing
• In situ contaminant destruction-OxyVac™
Table 3 summarizes the enhancements made in
the SVE system, the time frame over which each
enhancement was made, and the purpose and
results of each enhancement. Additional detail
on the Electrovac™ and pressurized air injection
enhancements is presented below.
Electrical Soil Heating - Electrovac™
During May 1991, a pilot test of electrical soil
heating was conducted at the site. This test
resulted in a small increase in soil temperature
and had no significant effect on VOC extraction
rates. According to Terra Vac, the limited
effectiveness was attributed to the low electrical
conductivity of soils and the presence of DNAPL.
Pressurized Air Injection
During October 1990, tests involving the
injection of pressurized air into the soils at the
Tyson's site were conducted in the west and
east lagoons. Hollow steel rods, Vz inch in
diameter, were driven down to about one foot
above the bottom of known DNAPL layers. The
rods then were connected to an air compressor.
Air was injected at a pressure of approximately
15 pounds per square inch in gauge (psig) and
at a flow rate of approximately 75 scfm.
After testing, air was injected through pressure
injection probes (PIP) for two to four hours. The
compressor was then shut down for the same
period of time. VOC extraction rates for wells in
the east and west lagoons increased in some
areas in response to air injection. Therefore, the
use of air injection was expanded to more than
100 PIPs that were installed in the east and west
lagoons. VOC extraction rates from both
lagoons increased during the second quarter of
1991; however, the VOC extraction rate
diminished with time.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
246
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 3: Summary of SVE Enhancements at the Tyson's Dump Superfund Site [4,6, 8,10]
,'4 * " - -"-" •*/
s Enhancement
Installation of 40 additional
wells
Steam injection
Conversion of 41 extraction
wells to slurp wells - To convert
the wells to slurp wells, Terra
Vac inserted a flexible hose
into the well to a depth just
above the total depth. Water
was then extracted from the
well by applying a vacuum to
the hose.
Decane treatment - Two to five
gallons of decane were added
to several wells, agitated with a
plunger and allowed to sit for
45 minutes or until the decane
seeped into the well packing.
The remaining decane was
then removed from the well.
Installation of a nylon-
reinforced plastic cover over
east lagoon
Dates7',
Implemented
11/1 5/88 to
12/15/88
4/89
6/89
6/89
7/89
V,Purpose
To ensure the zone of
influence for each well
would overlap sufficiently to
eliminate preferential flow
pathways created by
subsurface heterogeneities
and remedy the incomplete
coverage of the site by the
existing wells
To remove the tar that had
accumulated on the well
screens and increase the
VOC extraction rates
Wells were converted to
slurp wells to remove
perched groundwater
The decane was supposed
to dissolve the tar that had
plugged the well screens of
22 wells
Prevent infiltration of
precipitation and short
circuiting of air through the
surface
Results •, s
Terra Vac indicated that new
preferential pathways were
formed and the VOC
extraction rate increased
temporarily. However, within
one to two weeks the
extraction rate returned to the
initial level.
Increased the VOC extraction
rate because of the increase
in subsurface temperature.
However, tar was not removed
and steam quickly condensed
in the well inhibiting
subsurface air flow.
Slurp wells were effective in
removing excess water but
required constant monitoring
because wells tended to fill up
with water.
In July 1990, 6 of 22 wells
showed evidence of tar still
remaining.
No data are available on the
results of this enhancement.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
247
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 3 (continued): Summary of SVE Enhancements at the Tyson's Dump
Superfund Site [4, 6,8,10]
Enhancement
Hot air injection. Hot air
(200°F) was injected through
injection wells
Increased vacuum pressure [29
inches Hg]
Installation of 166 selectively
screened wells in areas where
permeability was low and the
concentration of contaminants
was higher than at other areas
Pressurized Air Injection - Air
was injected at 15 psig and a
flow rate of 75 scfm
Installation of 135 horizontal
wells
Dates
Implemented
8/89
11/20/89-
2/20/90
5/90 to 6/91
10/90
3/91 to 6/92
Purpose , "*'
To increase the VOC
extraction rate by increasing
subsurface temperature and
eliminating accumulation of
water that resulted from
condensation of steam from
the steam injection
enhancement
Increase VOC extraction
rate
The selectively screened
wells were intended to focus
air flow through areas of low
permeability and high
contaminant concentration,
thus increasing the VOC
extraction rate
Develop additional air flow
pathways to increase the
VOC extraction rate
To provide removal of
perched groundwater and
enhance extraction rate of
VOCs
"* ^ <,
X f , Results '"--,_ ["*-
Terra Vac noted that this
enhancement did improve the
extraction rate but not as
much as anticipated. Terra
Vac indicated that the shallow
depth of the injection wells
limited injection pressures and
significant heat losses were
experienced.
Terra Vac indicated the high
vacuum increased the
extraction rate for extraction
wells which had exhibited low
flow rates coupled with high
VOC concentrations.
However, the increase was
temporary and the extraction
rate became diffusion-limited.
Terra Vac indicated that the
VOC extraction rate increased
temporarily. Extraction rates
became diffusion-limited after
the area immediately around
the well was treated.
VOC extraction rates
increased temporarily;
however; the extraction rate
became diffusion-limited.
Some of the highest VOC
extraction rates resulted from
this enhancement. However,
extraction rates eventually
became diffusion-limited. No
data are available on how
effective the horizontal wells
were in removing perched
groundwater.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
248
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 3 (continued): Summary of SVE Enhancements at the Tyson's Dump
Superfund Site [4, 6, 8,10]
.Enhancement
- Dates
Implemented:
Purpose
Results'
Electrical Soil Heating - Terra
Vac's ElectroVac™ process
was used to raise the
temperature of the subsurface
soil
5/91
Raise the soil temperature
to increase the VOC
extraction rate.
Terra Vac indicated that the
ElectroVac™ process resulted
in a very limited increase in
the soil temperature and had
no significant effect on the
VOC extraction rates.
Removal of 94 ineffective wells
12/15/91 to
12/20/91
To remove ineffective wells
and reduce the number of
wells so that the capacity of
the SVE system was not
exceeded.
A total of 94 wells were taken
off-line. As the number of
extraction wells in a given
area increased, the
competition for subsurface air
flow increased among
individual wells as their zones
of influence began to overlap.
Consequently, several wells
were taken off-line because
their performance was less
than that of other wells and
because the vapor extraction
system did not have the
capacity to support all the
wells.
Geomixing - Soils were
physically mixed with augers
and backhoes
1/92-10/92
Break up soil
heterogeneities and
increase the VOC extraction
rate.
Geomixing appeared to break
up the soil heterogeneities
because VOC extraction rates
generally increased
immediately after mixing but
decreased within a week after.
In one case the VOC
extraction rate increased from
5 to 70 pounds per day.
However, it decreased to 10
pounds per day within a week.
OxyVac™ - Adding hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) to oxidize
contaminated soils and recover
the vapor phase oxidation
products
10/92
H2O2 would oxidize
contaminants and the
resulting oxidized product
could be recovered by the
vapor extraction system.
Pilot results indicated that
concentrations of 1,2,3-
trichloropropane were reduced
by 45 percent. However, the
effectiveness of the H2O2 was
limited only to those soils that
had direct contact with the
H202.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
249
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Operating Parameters That Affected Cost or
Performance of Treatment
Table 4 shows the operating parameters that
affected cost or performance of this technology
and the values measured for each.
Table 4: Operating Parameters That Affected
Cost or Performance [14]
Parameter
Air flow rate
Operating
pressure/vacuum
, Value
15,000 scfm
13 inches of mercury
vacuum
Timeline
Table 5: Timeline [1,4, 6, 8,12,13]
Start Date
January 1983
December
1984
November
1986
June 1987
March 31,
1988
November
1988
July 1989
August 1989
October 1 ,
1995
July 20, 1996
End Date
August 1984
-
-
July 1987
-
September
1996
-
October 1992
April 30, 1996
-
' Activity
EPA and its contractors conducted a series of investigations of the site.
EPA issued ROD for the on-site area (east and west lagoons).
Ciba-Geigy Corporation initiated a pilot study of an innovative vacuum extraction technology.
The four responsible parties submitted a proposal to EPA for cleanup of the lagoon areas,
upgrading of the leachate collection systems, and cleanup of the tributary systems.
EPA issued a revised ROD changing the remedy to soil vapor extraction
SVE system operation performed
Terra Vac covered the surface of the east lagoon with a nylon-reinforced plastic cover.
Terra Vac initiated a plan to remedy clogged wells through the use of a combination of
steam injection and decane treatment. Terra Vac also converted 41 wells to slurp wells.
Terra Vac added enhancements described in Table 3.
The SVE system was off line for a seasonal shutdown approved by EPA.
EPA issued a ROD amendment changing the remedy for the soils in the lagoons to
placement of a wet soil cover over the lagoon area soils.
Cleanup Goals and Standards f1]
Table 6 shows the cleanup standards specified
in the 1988 revised ROD for the four
contaminants of concern (indicator parameters)
in the lagoon soils at the Tyson's site. EPA also
specified cleanup goals for 41 other organic
compounds in the lagoon soils, as shown in
Appendix A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
r- D - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
ti A\ Technology Innovation Office
250
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfuncf Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 6: Cleanup Standards for Four
Constituents of Concern in the
Lagoon Soils [1]
Compound
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Concentration " :<"
Y (mg/kg)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Additional Information on Goals Ml
The 1988 revised ROD required the cleanup
goals to be achieved within 26 months after
startup of the SVE system. It also specified that,
if cleanup goals had not been met within the first
year of operation of the SVE system,
supplemental measures would be implemented
to improve the vacuum extraction process. The
revised ROD did not provide specific information
indicating which supplemental measures were to
be implemented or what action would be taken if
the cleanup goals were not attained within the
26-month time frame.
Treatment Performance Data
Terra Vac conducted a limited soil sampling
program during August 1991, approximately 32
months after the SVE system began operation.
Soil samples were taken from areas adjacent to
eight wells. The areas were defined by three soil
borings which were drilled in a triangular array
about three to five feet from each well (24
borings total). Samples were taken using a
continuous split spoon from the surface to auger
refusal, with samples taken from the split spoon
at intervals of every 4 inches whenever possible
and composited into the soil sample per boring.
Table 7 presents the results from the August
1991 sampling event and the August 1988
sampling event (two months before the system
began operating). As shown in the table and
described below, the concentrations of the four
constituents of concern remained above the
cleanup goals after 32 months of operation. In a
number of cases, the constituent concentrations
reported in 1991 were higher than reported in
1988.
The results for 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane showed
that concentrations had been reduced to below
detection limits in seven of the 24 soil borings.
However, the concentrations in the remaining soil
borings were above the cleanup goal, and ranged
from 16 mg/kg to 32,752 mg/kg. Between 1988
and 1991, concentrations of this constituent
decreased in three of the eight soil borings
sampled, but increased in the remaining soil
borings.
The results for benzene showed that
concentrations had been reduced to below
detection limits in 18 of the 24 soil borings. The
concentrations in the remaining soil borings were
above the cleanup goal and ranged from 11
mg/kg to 158 mg/kg. Between 1988 and 1991,
benzene concentrations decreased in three of the
eight soil borings, but increased in the remaining
five. Likewise, concentrations for trichloroethene
were reported below detected limits in 17 of 24
soil borings, with concentrations above the
cleanup goal (21 mg/kg to 116 mg/kg) reported in
the remaining soil borings. Between 1988 and
1991, trichloroethene concentrations decreased
in five of the soil borings, but increased in the
remaining three.
For tetrachloroethene, 17 of the 24 soil borings
showed concentrations below the detection limit.
The remaining soil borings showed
concentrations above the cleanup goal (21 mg/kg
to 3,951 mg/kg). Between 1988 and 1991,
concentrations decreased in six soil borings, but
increased in the remaining two.
Figure 5 shows the cumulative mass of VOCs
removed, the monthly mass extraction rate, and
the average extracted air flow per month from
1988 through 1993. Between November 1988
and November 1993, approximately 200,000
pounds of VOCs had been recovered from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
251
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 7: Comparison of Maximum Concentrations Detected in Soil Boring Samples
Collected Near Eight Wells at Tyson's Dump Superfund Site from 1988 to 1991 [11]
Well Number
Cleanup Goal
VE-06
VE-18
VE-23
VE-26
VE-41
VE-42
VE-52
VE-66
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
(mg/kg)
1988
1991*
0.05
166
5,660
0
14
249
250
17,200
403
43
63
63
16
221
435
185
ND
ND
29
ND
ND
3,872
ND
86
102
69
ND
13,946
286
32,752
22
2,079
ND
Benzene
{mg/kg),-
1988
,,1991*
0.05
5.10
120
0.04
0
0.14
3.03
34.2
0.04
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38
29
ND
ND
ND
71
ND
ND
ND
ND
158
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
Trichloroethene
(mg/kgK
1988
1991*
0.05
0.12
24.4
0.13
0
0.80
10.60
141
0.39
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
46
72
ND
35
22
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
ND
ND
116
ND
ND
ND
Tetrachloroethene
<,, -(mg/kg)
- 1988
1991*
0.05
135
366
0.43
0
6.64
12.9
4,730
0.21
33
ND
ND
ND
ND
50
25
ND
55
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
898
21
3,951
ND
ND
ND
' Results are provided for three soil borings which were drilled in a triangular array about 3-5 feet from each well.
site by the SVE system. There were no data
available to indicate which specific contaminants
were included as VOCs. Based on the estimate
of the mass of VOCs present (434,000 pounds),
the vapor extraction system had removed less
than 50 percent of the mass of contamination at
the site by November 1993. As shown in Figure
5, the VOC extraction rate was lowest during the
winter months.
According to EPA, in 1993, concentrations of
VOCs ranged from 10 mg/kg in the upper two
feet of soil to 10,000 mg/kg in the deeper soils.
The VOC extraction rate reached a maximum of
about 10,000 Ibs/month in September 1989. The
VOC extraction rate then decreased to below
2,000 Ibs/month between September and
December 1989. As described above, Terra Vac
attributed the decrease to site conditions,
including soil heterogeneity, soil moisture, and
the presence of DNAPLs. Terra Vac installed a
number of enhancements to the system (see
Table 3) in an attempt to improve performance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
__ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tPA Technology Innovation Office
252
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT;
SYSTEM (CONT.) i
Figure 5. VOC Mass Removal and Air Flow for the SVE System at Tyson's
Dump Superfund Site [15]
LEGEND
My ttv
1983
Many of the enhancements resulted in short-
term improvements in the extraction rates.
However, as described by Terra Vac, once the
new flow paths created by the enhancements
had been stripped of VOCs, the extraction rate
for the system became limited by the diffusion
rate.
In October 1995, EPA approved a seasonal
shut-down of the SVE system based on the low
VOC extraction rates obtained during the winter
months.
EPA subsequently determined that, beginning in
1993, the ability of the SVE system to efficiently
remove the remaining contaminants had
decreased significantly. EPA concluded that the
SVE system was incapable of meeting the
cleanup levels specified in the 1988 revised
ROD. As a result, in a 1996 ROD amendment,
the remedy was changed from SVE to
installation of a wet cover over the site.
Performance Data Completeness [7.11.151
Performance data for the SVE application at the
Tyson's site included initial soil sample data from
1988, and soil sample data from 1991 for the
four constituents of concern. No data were
provided on any of the 41 constituents listed in
Appendix A. Mass extraction data was available
from 1988 through 1993. No data were provided
after 1993. Data on concentrations of
contaminants in the soil after startup (November
1988) of the SVE system were available for only
8 VE wells at the site. Data on concentrations of
contaminants in the soil at over 80 other wells at
the site was not provided.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
253
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Quality of Performance Data
Terra Vac indicated that split-spoon samples
were collected to obtain soil samples. The
methanol extraction method was used to prepare
samples. Duplicate samples were collected at a
frequency of at least 10 percent. Field and trip
blanks were analyzed for each boring. No
discrepancies from established QA/QC
procedures were noted by Terra Vac.
COST OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Procurement Process
In February 1988, Terra Vac was contracted by
the RPs to provide the technology and operate a
vacuum extraction system of sufficient size to
remediate the Tyson's site within two years. The
construction phase of the project was procured
through a fixed price contract. The operation
and maintenance phase of the project was
procured through a time and materials contract.
Cost Analysis F9.161
The total actual cost for the SVE system was
reported by the RPs as $43.4 million.
Approximately $3.5 million was incurred for
design and pilot studies. Treatment costs were
$39.9 million and consisted of construction and
operation and maintenance costs. Construction
costs were $18.5 million. Operation and
maintenance costs, which included all
enhancements, were $21.4 million. No other
cost data were available.
OBSERVATION AND LESSONS
LEARNED
Performance Observations and Lessons
After 32 months of system operation, a total of
about 200,000 Ibs of VOCs had been removed
from the soil. However, the cleanup goals had
not been achieved. EPA subsequently
determined that the SVE system was incapable
of meeting the cleanup goals in a timely and cost
effective manner, and amended the ROD by
changing the remedy to a wet soil cover.
Tetra Vac attributed the SVE system's
performance problems to the presence of a
number of conditions at the site that had not
been identified or fully characterized during
previous investigations. These conditions
included greater variation in soil conditions
(porosity, permeability, moisture), greater
occurrence of DNAPLs, and the presence of
perched water at the site.
Enhancements that were made to the system in
an effort to improve performance included
varying the number and types of wells, heating
the soil using several techniques, destroying
contaminants in situ, and physically creating new
flow paths. In a number of cases, an
enhancement was operated for a short period of
time only to evaluate its performance and effect
on extraction rate. According to Terra Vac, there
was no significant difference in performance
between the different types of enhancements. In
all cases, only temporary increases in extraction
rate were observed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_— . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr f\ Technology Innovation Office
254
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
OBSERVATION AND LESSORS
LEARNED (CO;NT.) \ \
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The total cost for treatment was $39.9 million or
$1,330 per cubic yard of soil treated (based on
30,000 cubic yards). This cost includes costs for
construction, operation, and maintenance of the
SVE system including modifications and
enhancements. Because these costs include
the 14 enhancements, the costs may be high
when compared to other SVE applications.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 3. 1988. Revised Record of
Decision, Tyson's Dump Site. March 31.
2. Terra Vac. No date. Tyson's Site Overview.
3. Terra Vac. 1991. Letter regarding the
discovery of a rock layer at Tyson's site.
From R. Michael Peterson, Terra Vac. To
Karline Tierney, Ciba-Geigy Corporation.
April 16.
4. Terra Vac. 1989. Monthly report to Karline
Tierney, Ciba-Geigy Corporation. April 30.
5. Terra Vac. 1989. Letter regarding
procedures for combined steam injection
and decane treatment of clogged well
screens. From Terra Vac. To Eugene
Dennis, EPA. June 22.
6. Terra Vac. 1989. Monthly report to Karline
Tierney, Ciba Geigy Corporation. July 31.
7. Environmental Resource Management.
1988. Draft Results of Initial Soil Sampling
Episode for the Vacuum Extractions
Remedy, Tyson's Site, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for Ciba-Geigy
Corporation. December 7.
8. Terra Vac. 1994. Vacuum Extraction
Operations and Enhancements. Tyson's
Site, King of Prussia. Prepared for Ciba-
Geigy Corporation. January 31.
9. EPA. 1996. Record of Decision
Amendment: Tyson Dump, Superfund Site,
Upper Merion Township, PA. July 20.
10. Ciba-Geigy Corporation. 1990. Letter
regarding submittal of Terra Vac Report to
EPA on progress of the vacuum extraction
remedy and request from the responsible
parties group for additional time to complete
the remedy. From Karline Tierney,
Manager, Environmental Protection. To
Eugene Dennis, EPA Region 3. August 17.
11. Terra Vac. 1991. Alternative Sampling
Episode Results, Tyson's Site, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania. October 25.
12. Hazardous Waste Management Division,
EPA Region 3. 1994. Five Year Review
(Type 1) Tyson's Dump, Upper Merion,
Pennsylvania. September 30.
13. EPA Region 3. 1984. Record of Decision,
Tysons Dump Site, PA. December 21.
14. Pezzulo, A.P.E., J., R. M. Peterson, Ph.D.,
and J. Malot, P.E. Full-scale Remediation at
Superfund Site Using In-Situ Vacuum
Extraction and On-Site Regeneration, Case
Study - Phase I. No Date.
15. Terra Vac. 1994. Monthly System
Performance. DWG. No. 43-0401-01.
January 19.
16. Dupuis, Ken. 1997. Telephone
conversation between Ken Dupuis of Ciba-
Geigy Specialty Chemicals and Tom Sinski
of Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Regarding the cost
of the soil vapor extraction system at
Tyson's. October 13.
17. Terra Vac. 1988. Draft Exhibit A -
Preliminary Data Evaluation. October 19.
Preparation of Analysis
This case study was prepared for EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was
provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA
Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
255
-------
Tyson's Dump Superfund Site
APPENDIX A
Table A-1: Cleanup Levels for Lagoon Soils (in addition to those shown in Table 6) [1]
Compound
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzoic Acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
Chrysene
Cycloheptatriene
Cyclohexanone
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Di-Octyl Phthalate
Dichlorobenzenes
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dodecane
Ethylbenzene
1-Ethyl-2-Methylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Hexadecane
Hexadecanoic Acid
2-Methyl Phenol/4-Methyl Phenol
2-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methylene Chloride
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N,N-Dimethyl-1 ,3-Propanediamine
1 ,1 -Oxybis-(2-ethoxyethane)
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetramethylurea
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
Tridecane
Undecane
o-xylene
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.4
12,400
6.95
83,100
36.8
11.5
170
3.80
0.06
0.21
262
894
16,400
60
10.8
490,000
599
107
408
2,900,000
0.197
33.5
18.7
478
5.84
4.80
3.03
0.300
6.50
9.22
7.09
4.19
3,890
7.50
588
479
1,230
479
54,000
23,000
6.28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
256
-------
OTHER THERMAL PROCESSES
CASE STUDIES
257
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
258
-------
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)™ Process at Brodhead Creek
Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
259
-------
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)™ Process at Brodhead Creek
Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Site Name:
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
Location:
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Contaminants:
Coal tar and coal tar residual
containing:
- PAHs - benzo(a)pyrene and
naphthalene
- Nonhalogenated semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs)
- Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) - benzene
- Metals - arsenic
Period of Operation:
July 1995 - June 1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Mark Moeller
RETEC
9 Pond Lane, Suite 3A
Concord, MA 07142
(508)371-1422
Lyle Johnson
Western Research Institute
365 North 9th Street
Laramie, WY 82070
(307) 721-2281
PRP Lead:
Jim Villaume
Senior Project Manager
Pennsylvania Power and Light
(PP&L)
Two North Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101
(610)774-5094
Technology:
CROW™ process
- Hot water injected into
subsurface; water and coal tar
extracted and treated using a tar-
water separator
- Six injection wells and two
production wells (used for
extraction)
- Water from separator treated
using carbon adsorption; recovered
tar sent off site for treatment
- Injection pressure - 20 psig
- Extraction rate - design of 100
gpm; actual of 40 gpm
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
-RODdate: 3/29/91
-BSDdate: 7/19/94
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
John Banks
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 566-3214
Waste Source: Disposal of waste
in open pit
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Free product (coal tar) - 1,500 gallons of coal tar
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Recover free and
residual coal tar using the
CROW™ process
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified removal of 60 percent of the total free-phase coal tar from the subsurface soils. However,
the results of the preremedial design investigation found that an accurate measurement of the amount of free-
phase coal tar was not possible.
- An BSD was issued to change the standard. The system was required to operate until the amount of free-phase
coal tar recovered was minimal.
260
-------
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)™ Process at Brodhead Creek
Superfund Site, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (continued)
Results:
- Initial estimate of total volume of coal tar removed - 1,500 gallons (based on estimate of amount removed for
each pore volume of water flushed through the recovery zone). In addition, no measurable material had been
recovered during the last three months of operation.
- However, EPA determined that the method used for this estimate was inaccurate and therefore could not be
used to determine whether the performance standard had been met. In response, the PRPs were required to
collect three additional pore volumes and perform quantitative analyses per EPA requirements.
- The results showed that the recovered process water did not contain free or separable coal tar; EPA agreed that
the performance standard had been met and allowed the system to be shut down.
Cost:
- Total cost - $1.9 million, including $1.2 million for treatment costs.
- Costs for this application were shared among DOE, the Gas Research Institute, and PP&L.
Description:
Citizen Gas and Electric operated a coal gasification plant at this site from 1888 until 1944. Coal tar from these
operations was disposed of hi open pits at the site. In October 1980, coal tar was observed to be seeping into
Brodhead Creek. In December 1982, the site was placed on the National Priorities List. The results of the
Remedial Investigation identified free-phase coal tar at the site. In addition, the soil and groundwater at the site
were contaminated with PAHs, other SVOCs, VOCs, and metals. The ROD signed in 1991 specified the use of
an enhanced recovery technology to remove free-phase coal tar from subsurface soils. The Contained Recovery
of Oily Waste (CROW)™ process was selected for use at the site.
The CROW™ process involved injecting hot water into the subsurface through six wells to decrease the
viscosity of the coal tar and facilitate recovery, then extracting the water and coal tar using two production wells.
The extracted water and coal tar were treated using a tar-water separator. Water from the separator was treated
using carbon adsorption; recovered tar was sent off site for treatment. While the design called for the system to
be operated at a rate of 100 gpm, the actual rate was 40 gpm. A reason for the reduced rate included iron fouling
problems in the well screens. Initial results indicated that the CROW™ process had removed 1,500 gallons of
coal tar and that no measurable coal tar had been recovered during the last three months of operation. In March
1996, samples of the recovered material were taken from the storage tank. The results indicated that the contents
were primarily water, and raised concerns about the method that was being used to calculate the volume of tar
recovered. EPA determined that the method was not accurate, and therefore could not be used to determine
whether the performance standard had been met. Additional pore volumes were collected and the results of
quantitative analyses performed per EPA requirements showed that the cleanup goals had been met.
261
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Brodhead Creek Site
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
CERCLIStf: PAD980691760
ROD Date: 29 March 1991
ESDDate: 19 July 1994
Treatment Application:
Type of Action: Remedial
EPA SITE Program test associated with
application? Yes
Period of operation: July 1995 - June 1996
Quantity of material recovered during
application: 1,500 gallons of coal tar
Background M. 7. 8]
Historical Activity That Generated
Contamination at the Site: Coal gasification
plant
Corresponding SIC: 4925 (Mixed,
Manufactured, or Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Production and/or Distribution)
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Waste
product disposed of in an open pit.
Location: Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Operations: Coal gasification plant
Citizen Gas and Electric operated a coal
gasification plant from about 1888 until 1944.
A waste product from those operations was a
black tar-like liquid (coal tar) with a density
greater than water (specific gravity equal to
1.014) and principally composed of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Coal tar was
disposed of in an open waste pit on site.
In October 1980, during repairs of a flood
control levee near the site, material identified as
coal tar was observed seeping into Brodhead
Creek.
As a result of the contamination, several
investigations and removal response actions
were initiated, between 1981 and 1984. The
actions included:
• Installation of filter fences and underflow
dams to intercept coal tar seepage
• Installation of a coal tar recovery pit on the
bank of Brodhead Creek
• Construction of a slurry wall to mitigate coal
tar migration from the site into Brodhead
Creek
• Excavation of a backwater channel area
where seepage of coal tar appeared to be
significant
• Installation of recovery wells in the main
coal tar pool that recovered approximately
8,000 gallons of coal tar
In December 1982, the site was placed on the
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
National Priorities List The remedial
investigation (Rl) was completed in April, 1989,
and a feasibility study (FS) was completed in
January 1991.
An interim record of decision (ROD) signed on
March 29,1991 called for the use of an
enhanced recovery technology to recover free
phase coal tar from subsurface soils. On July
19,1994, an explanation of significant
differences (ESD) was approved. The ESD
modified the performance standard of the coal
tar recovery operations and addressed
requirements under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) for management of
coal tar.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
— — . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr A Technology Innovation Office
262
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION (COI^T.)
Regulatory Context:
On August 20,1987, the potentially responsible
parties (PRP) for the site entered into an
agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) to conduct the
RI/FS.
On March 29,1991, EPA issued a ROD for the
site. The ROD called for the use of an
enhanced recovery technology to recover free
phase coal tar from subsurface soils.
Remedy Selection: The remedy called for
enhanced recovery of coal tar in the subsurface
soils; separation of the coal tar from the process
waters; discharge of the process waters after
treatment to Brodhead Creek; incineration of
recovered coal tar at a permitted off-site facility;
fencing, deed restrictions and monitoring of
groundwater; and testing of biota in Brodhead
Creek.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: (PRP Lead)
Jim Villaume, Senior Project Scientist
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company
Two North Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101
(610)774-5094
Oversight:
U.S EPA (John Banks);
PA DEP Northeast Regional Office (Len
Zelinka);
EPA Consultants CH2M HILL (Murray
Rosenberg)
Remedial Project Manager:
John Banks
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)566-3214
State Contact:
Len Zelinka
Pennsylvania DEP
Northeast Regional Office
2 Public Square
Wilkes Barre, PA 18711-0790
(717)826-2511
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW™)
System Vendor:
Mark Moeller
RETEC (Licence holder)
9 Pond Lane, Suite 3-A
Concord, MA 07142-2851
(508) 371-1422
Lyle Johnson
Western Research Institute (Technology
Developer)
365 N. 9th Street
Laramie, WY 82070
(307)721-2281
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Recovery System: Waste product and process
water.
Contaminant Characterization M. 71
Primary Contaminant Groups: PAHs,
nonhalogenated semivolatiles, volatiles, and
metals
Coal tar from coal gasification operations has
migrated vertically through the unsaturated and
saturated portions of the stream gravel units to
the interface with the silty sand. The silty sand
prevents further downward movement of the
coal tar because of the higher capillary
pressures within that unit. Further movement of
the coal tar has been lateral toward the natural
depressions in the silty sand unit where it has
accumulated.
As shown in Figure 1, potentially recoverable
coal tar is trapped in a portion of the natural
stratigraphic depression east of the slurry wall
near monitoring well 2 (MW-2) and in the lower
portion of the stratigraphic depression west of
the slurry wall, as measured in the central
recovery well cluster (RCC) which was part of
the initial product recovery system. Both of
these tar accumulations were considered to be
confined from further downward migration as a
bulk nonaqueous phase by the top of the silty
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
263
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED)
Figure 1. Schematic of Extent of Free and Residual Coal Tar [3]
sand unit. The 1991 ROD estimated the total
volume of free phase coal tar associated with
these areas to be 9,000 gallons, with 8,715
gallons and 338 gallons of free phase coal tar
associated with the RCC and MW-2 areas,
respectively.
The primary contaminants at the site were
benzo(a)pyrene (representative of carcinogenic
PAHs), naphthalene (representative of
noncarcinogenic PAHs), benzene, and arsenic.
Soil samples from the silty sand unit (monitoring
wells 9 and 10) indicated the presence of
chloroform at a concentration of 2 ^ug/kg. Soil
samples from the gravel unit (monitoring wells
11 and 12) showed evidence of low VOC
concentrations in only MW-11 where traces of
coal tar were noted in sampled materials.
Semivolatile organic results for the four soil
sample locations ranged from non detect in the
silty sand to high concentrations in the gravel
unit at MW-11. The concentration of SVOCs in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
264
-------
Brodhead Creek Superf und Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM
MW-11 were very high suggesting the presence
of residual saturation of coal tar in that area. In
MW-11, reported concentrations ranged from
590 ^g/kg for indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and up to
54,000 /4j/kg for 2-methyl naphthalene. Total
PAHs were identified tentatively at
concentrations of 450,000 ,ug/kg.
Contaminants in the groundwater that were
detected at concentrations above EPA's
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for
groundwater include: benzene (maximum
concentration, 1,100/^g/L), arsenic (maximum
concentration, 108/^g/L). Several PAHs
including benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and chrysene were detected
in groundwater at concentrations ranging from
250yug/Lto300Jug/L
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment
Costs or Performance n. 3. 71
Type of Matrix: Free Phase Coal Tar in soil)
Geology: The site is located within the Valley
and Ridge physiographic province of the
Appalachian Mountains. As shown in Figure 1,
the Brodhead Creek site is underlain by at least
60 feet of unconsolidated sediments of glacial,
recent fluvial, and human origin. Four distinct
strata make up this unconsolidated interval:
surficial fill, flood-plain deposits, stream gravels,
and silty sands. The thickness of the stream
gravel averages about 10 to 15 feet, but ranges
to a maximum of 25 feet in a stratigraphic
depression in the center of the site. Bedrock at
the site is the Devonian Age Marcellus Shale.
Directly underlying the Marcellus Shale is the
Devonial Age Buttermilk Falls Formation, which
is composed of limestone and is a viable water
supply.
Primary Treatment Technology
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Oil/water separation; carbon adsorption
System Description and Operation T6. 81
This enhanced recovery process used hot water
(approximately 200° F) injected into subsurface
areas where free-phase tar had been identified.
The heat of the injected water decreased the
viscosity of the tar, facilitating recovery.
Heating the tar also reversed the difference in
density between the oily waste and water. The
density of heavy organics is almost equivalent
to the density of water at a temperature of about
100°F. At higher temperatures, the oil phase
has a lower density than water because water is
more polar and resists thermal expansion.
Figure 2 shows a cross section of the
subsurface activity associated with the CROW
system. Figure 3 presents a plan view of the
entire operation at the site and shows the
system's well fields.
Downward migration of oily wastes was reduced
by thermal expansion and lower density of the
oils and floating of coal tar. Balancing the hot-
water injection and production rates controlled
the upper boundary of the contaminated area,
preventing fluid displacement through density
induced flotation into the overlying material. Six
injection wells were installed in such a manner
as to encircle the estimated areal extent of the
deposit of tar. The design injection flow rate of
approximately 100 gallons per minute (gpm)
never was achieved. That failure was the result
of iron fouling problems in the well screens and
possibly the formation itself. Two production
wells were installed near the center of the
deposit. Water and tar were extracted from the
production,wells at approximately 40 gpm,
producing a drawdown in the wells that induced
a gradient from the injection points to the
production points. The induced gradient also
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
265
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONTINUED)
Injection W«ll
Production Well
Hot Water.
Hot Water
fb-
. Oil and Water
Pioduclion (~40gptn)
.' ; Hol-WalBf • '
Flotation • •
.Hot Water
Injection
Source: The FRM Qreup
Figure 2. Cross section of subsurface setup of CROW process [6]
limited the heat to levels within the target zone
and prevented the release of the mobilized
constituents into the surrounding aquifer. After
the mixture of tar and water was pumped to the
surface, it underwent treatment through a tar-
water separator. Approximately 33 gpm of the
separated water was recycled through the water
heater and discharged into the six injection
wells. The remaining 7 gpm was pumped to the
FBR unit where the organic constituents were
degraded biologically. The treated water then
was pumped through two carbon adsorption
units to meet limits set by the state under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) before it was discharged to
Brodhead Creek.
It originally was anticipated that, when the level
of recovered coal tar in Oil Storage Tank 4 had
reached 50 percent of the tank's capacity
(approximately 5,000 gallons), transfer
procedures for the coal tar would begin.
However, the level in the oil storage tank never
reached 50 percent. Therefore, all recovered
tar was transferred off site for treatment at the
end of the project. The contracted disposal
company provided the necessary equipment to
transfer the coal tar properly from the settling
tanks and the oil storage tank to the truck. The
coal tar was dewatered at a facility in Ohio, then
transported to a permitted boiler or industrial
furnace (BIF) facility in Pennsylvania.
Process water was run through a series of three
20,000 gallon tanks that served as an oil-water
separation system, then treated further by the
GAC-FBR units, before it was discharged to
Brodhead Creek.
Recovered coal tar (deemed a RCRA
characteristic waste for toxicity) was dewatered
at an off-site facility, then shipped to and burned
at another offsite facility permitted as a BIF, in
compliance with the off-site rule.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_D - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tPA Technology Innovation Office
266
-------
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONTINUED)
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
System Operation
The proposed operating conditions for the
CROW system were:
Nominal Pattern Distribution
Number of Patterns
Number of Wells
Injection
Extraction
Interior Monitoring
Exterior Monitoring
Average Injection/Extraction
Well Spacing
Average Gross Thickness of
Saturated Zone
Injection Pressure
(at bottom of well)
Injection Wellhead Temp.
Pattern Injection Rate
(design)
(actual)
Total Water Injected
Water Production
(Extraction) Rate/Per Well
Total Water Production
(Extraction) Rate
Total Water Extracted
Injection/Production Time
40 ft x 80 ft
2
6
2
4
4
28ft
20ft
20 pounds per
square inch
gauge (psig)
~170°F
100 gpm
40 gpm
13-17 xtO6
gallons
35-45 gpm
70-90 gpm
21 x 10s gal
11 months
Nominal pattern distribution refers to how the
injection wells and production wells are placed
relative to each other to enhance the recovery
of the coal tar. There were six injection wells
and two production wells in the pattern. The
pattern was designed so that four wells were
aligned with one production well, with a
crossover of injection wells 3 and 4 to the
production well. Figure 3 shows the position of
the wells at Brodhead Creek.
The CROW process enhances recovery of oily
waste by reducing its viscosity and reversing the
difference in density between the oil and the
water.
Laboratory and pilot work performed indicated
that the optimal temperature for flushing of the
Brodhead Creek site was 156°F. The average
temperature of the targeted area was less than
156°F. The average temperature of the
targeted area varied from 150 to 180°F near the
injection wells to 110 to 130°F near the
production wells. This was the result of the
system operating at a lower flow rate than
originally designed due to iron fouling of the
wells and the formation itself. The lower-than-
optimum temperature (156°F) may have
resulted in recovery of less tar because the
viscosity of the tar had not been reduced as
much as had been anticipated.
Suspended solids also caused operational
difficulties throughout the system. They
interfered with tar settling calculations; fouled
the granular activated carbon-fluidized bed
reactor (GAC-FBR), carbon drums, and injection
wells; and increased the concentrations of
dissolved PAHs in the discharge water.
Suspended solids occur in the form of silt, iron
floe (or other precipitated metals), or biomass.
Filters were installed in line at various points in
the system to remove the suspended solids.
Modifications to the system included:
rewiring of heater elements for optimal
performance and increased temperature;
• reconfiguring the heater control unit for
greater temperature regulation;
• replacing inflatable packers into injection
wells (W1, W2, W6);
• utilizing supplementary interior monitoring
wells as injection wells.
repairing and replacing damaged flow
meters for increased injection flow control;
• repairing production pumps to increase the
capacity and permit increased injection; and
• replacing all four carbon adsorption units
with new units.
• modifying the water treatment system to
enhance iron flue removal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
267
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONTINUED)
Proposed Location of
Process Control Building
• GRAPHIC SCALE
Existing Tower
IW = Injection Well
PW = Production Well
Source: ReTec
( IN FEET )
',nr-h = 4Q ft.
Figure 3. Plan View of CROW System Operations and Positions of Injection and Recovery Wells
at Brodhead Creek [6]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_Q - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr/V Technology Innovation Office
268
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards \2. 71
The ROD called for removal of 60 percent of the
total free phase coal tar from the subsurface
soils. However, the preremedial design
investigation revealed that an accurate
measurement of the amount of free phase coal
tar initially present was not possible, mainly
because of the heterogeneity of the subsurface
and difficulty experienced with collecting
representative samples. During the remedial
design, it was learned that, although free phase
coal tar was present at both the RCC and MW-2
areas, it was discontinuous, and therefore a
direct estimate of the initial volume present
could not be made. Consequently, it was not
possible to determine when 60 percent of the
total free phase coal tar had been removed.
The July 1994 ESD revised the standard,
requiring the system to be operated until "the
incremental change in the amount removed is
0.5% or less of the cumulative coal tar removed
per pore volume."
Timeline F5. 6. 81
Previous laboratory and field data indicate that it
is at this point that 98.5 percent of the total
recoverable coal tar will have been recovered.
Additional Information on Goals
RCRA hazardous waste regulations were
determined to be applicable for the
management, storage, treatment, and disposal
of the coal tar recovered at the site. The coal
tar was RCRA characteristic (toxic) for benzene
and arsenic. EPA also determined that the
recovered coal tar could be disposed of in an
offsite BIF that was in compliance with interim
status requirements pursuant to 40 CFR Part
266 Subpart H.
Process water was treated to levels meeting
NPDES requirements for Brodhead Creek prior
to discharge.
Sjart Date
1888
—
1981
...
—
August 1988
...
...
—
January 1993
May 1994
December 1994
- End Date
1944
October 1980
1984
December 1982
August 1987
April 1989
January 1991
March 1991
September 1992
March 1994
October 1994
June 1996
'— -'' " "fsctMty ' , r"~> "" '• • , -
Coal gasification plant operates along the west bank of Brodhead Creek near
Stroudsburg, PA.
Coal tar seepage to Brodhead Creek is discovered during repair of the toe of the flood
control levees.
Various investigations and Superfund removal response actions are initiated to mitigate
the flow of coal tar into Brodhead Creek.
The site is placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List.
Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) Co. and Union Gas enter into a consent
agreement with the state of Pennsylvania to conduct an RI/FS for the site.
Field work for the Rl is conducted.
The FS for the site is completed.
An interim ROD is approved.
The consent decree to implement the remedy set forth in the ROD was entered into
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The remedial design was completed.
The remedial construction was completed.
The remedial action was completed; the performance standard had been met.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
269
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONTINUED)
Treatment Performance Data [6, 8]
Approximately 20 pore volumes of water flushed
through the recovery zone resulted inan
estimated total volume of coal tar removed from
the subsurface of approximately 1,500 gallons.
This measure was estimated during each pore
volume flushed, but was not verified until the
end of the project, when the storage tanks were
pumped (see discussion below). Figure 4 shows
the estimated cumulative amount of tar
recovered over life of the project.
Figure 5 shows the estimate of the percentage
increase in cumulative amount recovered,
compared with pore volume at the site. For the
last three pore volumes (18,19, and 20) the
figure shows an incremental change in the
amount removed of less than 0.5 percent of the
cumulative amount of coal tar recovered per
pore volume of water flushed through the
subsurface soils. However, because of
problems with the measuring methodology, the
accuracy of this estimate cannot be verified
directly. The measurement of the amount of tar
recovered in the production well during the final
pore volume flushes indirectly verified that the
performance standard had been achieved, (see
discussion below).
Figures 4 and 5 show that the majority of the
coal tar recovered occurred in the first three
pore volumes. On the measurements made
during the process, approximately half the
recovered tar was recovered in the first 3 pore
volumes, and the other half in the latter 17 pore
volumes flushed through the subsurface soils.
However, as discussed below, confidence in the
measurements was suspect, and the initial
recovery cannot be verified.
Cumulative Recovery vs. Fore Volume
Brodhead Creek DNAPL Enhanced Recovery Process
2,000
! 1,500
1,000
500
I I [ 1 t
L 1 I I 1. I I 1.1 It t t I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Pure Volumes
Volumes measured as tar/water mixture is transferred into Tank 4. The results estimate the tar/solids
component only.
Figure 4. Estimated Cumulative Recovery of Tar Over Life of Project [6, 8]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
270
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfuntf Site
TREATMENT SYSTE,VI
PERFORMANCE (CONTINUED)
Percent Increase in Cumulative Recovery vs. Pore Volume
Brodhead Creek DNAPL Enhanced Recovery Process
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Pore "Nfolumes
Volumes measured as tar/water mixture is transferred into Tank 4. The results estimate the tar/solids
component only.
Figure 5. Estimate of the Percent Increase in cumulative Amount Recovered Per
Pore Volume [6, 8]
The original design included an automatic tar
separation and measuring system that consisted
of conductivity meters and a flow meter with a
totalizer. In theory, a conductivity meter would
sense any dense accumulation of tar at the
bottom of the settling tank. The conductivity
meter was wired to a tar transfer pump. As long
as the meter sensed the presence of tar, the
valve would stay open, and the liquid would be
pumped from the tank bottom to the oil storage
tank. The flow meter and totalizer would
measure the transfer of oil. Ideally, at the end
of the project, the totalizer would indicate how
much tar had been transferred to the oil storage
tank. However, viscous tars or oils fouled the
conductivity and the flow meters, making
accurate readings impossible. This condition
caused a problem in determining whether the
performance of the system met established
standards.
To measure the increase in the cumulative
amount of tar recovered, two items of
information were needed: the total cumulative
amount recovered and the amount recovered in
the last pore volume. The initial methods for
measuring those quantities were unreliable
because of the technical difficulties described
above. To estimate the quantities, the site
operator checked the bottoms of tanks 1, 2, and
3 each day by collecting a small sample of liquid
near the bottom of each tank. If the sample
appeared murky, it was allowed to settle
overnight.
Generally, the sample would separate by
morning into two phases. A light, clear, water
phase would rise to the surface, and a dark oily
phase would sink to the bottom. This bottom
phase, referred to as the "solid mixture," was a
mixture of silt, iron floe, and tar. If the solid
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
271
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONTINUED)
mixture made up more than 50 percent (by
visual inspection) of the sample, a transfer of tar
was conducted. A small amount of material at
the bottom of that particular tank would be
pumped into the oil storage tank. Because the
flow meter was not working, it was not possible
to measure accurately the flow rate or quantity
of tar transferred. Therefore, the operator
estimated the quantity. To do so, the operator
timed the pump while monitoring the rise in the
level of liquid in the oil storage tank. By
converting the rise in the level of liquid to a
volume, the operator was able to determine the
flow rate produced by the oil transfer pump.
The flow rate was estimated at 50 gpm. By
timing the transfer of tar, the operator could
record the total quantity of liquid transferred. To
determine the percentage of tar in that liquid,
the operator collected a second sample from the
same sample port in the tank. That sample also
was allowed to settle overnight. The next day,
the percentage of solid mixture was observed
and recorded. The quantity of tar then was
estimated by averaging the before and after
percentages of the solid mixture and multiplying
by the total volume of liquid transferred.
The results represented the total volume of tar,
iron floe, and silt transferred because those
materials could not be separated in the solid
mixture. As the system was operated, those
volumes were recorded. By tracking the pore
volumes flushed over the same period of time,
an estimate was made that allocated a specific
volume of tar transferred to a specific pore
volume.
In March 1996, near the end of the project, a
sample of recovered solid mixture was collected
from the oil storage tank. The sample had an
oily aroma and had a murky brownish-orange
appearance. The sample was analyzed for its
primary components. The results were:
Moisture Content 99.60%
Organic Content 0.27%
Inorganic Content 0.13%
Total 100.00%
The results which indicated that the contents of
the oil storage tank were primarily water,
prompted concern about the representativeness
of the sample. Subsequent sampling showed
that a darker phase was present in the bottom
few feet of the tank, and that most of the tank
was filled with water. However, samples of the
darker, denser phase at the bottom of the tank
revealed similar results. On the basis of those
results, EPA concluded that the modified
method of calculating the volume of tar
recovered was inaccurate and therefore the
results could not be used to certify achievement
of the performance standard.
Upon analysis of the contents of the other tank
bottoms, it was discovered that much of the
dense organic material had accumulated in the
primary settling tanks. The material that was
transferred into the oil storage tank throughout
the operation of the system consisted of a dilute
mixture that floated on top of the dense organic
material. In addition, pumping from a low point
on the tank likely caused a high energy point so
that less viscous fluids immediately filled the
pipe space. This condition resulted in the
transfer of a large amount of water and a small
amount of organic material. EPA concluded
that it would be necessary to change the
performance standard or devise an alternative
measure of the performance of the system.
Because no measurable material had been
recovered from the production water for three
months, the PRPs believed that the
performance standard had been met and that it
should not be changed. However, EPA required
a quantitative measure before it would allow the
PRPs to shut down the system. EPA agreed
that, if the quantity of tar recovered in the latest
pore volume flushing was zero, the total amount
of tar recovered could be quantified after the
system was shut down. Therefore, EPA
required evidence that no measurable separable
tar was being recovered from the subsurface as
a demonstration of compliance with the
performance standard.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office °f Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
272
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONTINUED)
EPA also required that the PRPs monitor the
quality of the production water for three
additional pore volume flushings at the highest
heat possible. To comply with that request, the
heater was rewired, additional injection points
were installed, using the existing interior
monitoring wells and the production pumps were
serviced to increase the capacity and permit
increased injection of hot water. That
maintenance resulted in the hottest three pore
volume flushings of the project; injection
temperatures averaged about 180°F and
production temperatures averaged about
145 °F.
During the final flushing, EPA required that
samples of production well water be collected
three times per week and analyzed for total
PAHs and BTEX. The results were evaluated to
determine whether the concentrations of specific
constituents were associated with free phase
coal tar. Water that is in contact with free phase
coal tar tends to have concentrations of
constituents near their solubility levels. The
analysis showed that most of the constituents
analyzed for were present at levels significantly
below their individual solubility limits, even
before the samples were filtered. This finding
indicated that the process water being
recovered did not contain free or separable coal
tar.
On June 7, 1996, EPA agreed that the
performance standard had been met and that
injection and production could be halted.
Performance Data Quality
A field sampling plan and groundwater
monitoring plan was submitted as part of the
final design. The field sampling and
groundwater monitoring plan for the Brodhead
Creek site covered the sampling objectives,
data gathering activities, and groundwater
monitoring activities. The sampling objectives
covered process monitoring, process water
sampling, waste characterization sampling,
post-treatment for monitoring, and health and
safety concerns. Data gathering activities
covered all activities associated with operating
and monitoring the CROW process. The
groundwater monitoring plan addressed the
activities to be conducted for monitoring
groundwater responses, such as temperature
and water levels, to the CROW process.
TREATMiNT SYSTEM
Procurement Process
To design and implement the remedy, the PRPs
contracted with Remediations Technology, Inc.
(RETEC) of Concord, Massachusetts, which
holds a licence for the CROW process
developed by Western Research Institute.
Cost Analysis [5. 8]
Costs for the Brodhead Creek site began to
accumulate in 1980, when EPA responded to
the leaking of coal tar into the creek. However,
it was not until the consent decree was lodged in
1992 that the remedial action for coal tar
recovery began.
As shown in Table 1, the total cost of the project
was $1.9 million. Costs were shared by DOE,
GRI, and PP&L The decommissioning work
was funded entirely by PP&L. Data on before,
during, and after-treatment costs were
estimated by the vendor, and are presented in
Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The estimated
total cost for treatment directly associated with
treatment is $1,283,000. The vendor indicated
that costs for disposal of residuals and wastes
were minimal and that demobilization accounted
for most of the cost.
Modifications of the recovery system to meet
verification standards increased the cost of the
project. Information on the exact increase in
cost was not available.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
273
-------
Brcdhead Creek Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
COSTS (CONTINUED)
Quality OLGosUDaja
The cost data shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4
represent the vendor's best estimate of the
actual costs for each cost element and total
about $1.4 million. Table 1 shows a total cost of
$1.9 million; the additional elements contributing
to the total cost were not provided.
Table 1: Total Costs and Costs Sharing for Implementation of CROW Process at
Brodhead Creek Site [8]
'"t Source of
Funds
DOE
GRI
PP&L
Total
Contractor
WRI
WRI
RETEC
Direct Payments
Construction and -
Operation" ($)
314,200
20,000
332,400
1,116,493
41,674
1,824,767
Decommissioning ($)
92,400
92,400
» s i ",
Total fr9§5 $) -
314,200
20,000
332,400
1,208,893
41,093
1,917,167
Table 2: Treatment Costs1 [5]
Cost Elements
Solids Preparation and Handling
Residuals and waste handling and transporting
Startup Testing and Permits
Permitting and regulatory
Startup
Operation
Labor
Supplies and consumables
Utilities
Equipment repair and replacement
Engineering support
Operation (continued)
Ctost($) -
3,000
25,000
40,000
150,000
200,000
40,000
50,000
30,000
Costs were estimated by the vendor. Costs reflect 1995 dollar values.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C n A Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
t "i\ Technology Innovation Office
274
-------
Brodhead Creek Super-fund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
COSTS (CONTINUED)
Table 2 (continued): Treatment Costs1 [5]
"_v"'/:; ..'-. Cost Elements -*'v -;/' ";»,
\ "* " < v" XX'
Instrumentation
• Laboratory
Subcontractors
Travel and living expenses
Project management
Regulatory reporting and coordination
Miscellaneous/health and safely
Performance Evaluation
Treatment Verification
Remedial Construction
Cost of Ownership
Capital equipment
Total
. - ^ eo$t{$H ' -
25,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
50,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
400,000
40,000
1,283,000
Table 3: Before-Treatment Costs1 [5]
' '- ' '' - - • Costlflements "'. - - - ' - -' '
Site preparation
Equipment transport to the site
Initial setup
Installing utilities
Installing decontamination facilities
Total
"*"" . Cost($) ~ ' ;
20,000
10,000
15,000
5,000
2,000
52,000
Table 4: Post-Treatment Costs1 [5]
^'-. ;;/,-: :';' .s, -Cost Elements,,'; ~" . .;•-, • . £
Disposal of residuals and wastes
Demobilization
Total
r^ ^ i®st($) $r #c .-"
80,000
80,000
Costs were estimated by the vendor. Costs reflect 1995 dollar values.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
275
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS
LEARNED
Observations and Lessons Learned
The CROW™ process achieved the cleanup
goal for the site within a year. Initial results in
the Spring of 1996 indicated that the cleanup
goal had been met. However, EPA subsequently
determined that the method used to estimate the
amount of free coal tar recovered was not
accurate and could not be used to demonstrate
that the cleanup goal had been met. The
method was modified and, based on the results
of additional samples, EPA determined in June
1996 that the cleanup goal had been met.
The enhanced recovery process was to remove
at least 60 percent of the free phase coal tar
from the subsurface soils. However, this
performance standard required an accurate
determination of initial conditions of either the
volume or concentration of free phase coal tar
present. Several attempts were made during the
remedial design to quantify the amount of free
phase coal tar present or determine the
concentration of free phase coal tar in the RCC
and MW-2 areas. A number of piezometers
were installed at the site to determine the lateral
extent of the free phase coal tar. EPA learned
that, although free phase coal tar was present in
both the RCC and MW-2 areas, it was
discontinuous (it was not present in a uniform
layer at a constant elevation). Therefore, direct
estimates of its volume could not be made.
Installation of wells was impeded because of the
cobble-filled strata in the subsurface soils. The
geology underlying the site consists of the
following stratigraphic units in ascending order:
bedrock; silty sands; stream gravels; flood plain
deposits; and surficial fill. In that type of
geology, the drilling method selected should be
capable of drilling through large stones. In
addition, the boreholes for the injection wells
should be oversized and installed by a cased
drilling method, rather than by hollow stem
auger. This reduces the potential for smearing
the borehole sidewall and allows for adequate
gravel pack to increase the hydraulic connection
to the aquifer, thereby increasing the injection
capacity of the wells.
Because of problems with iron fouling of the
injection wells, the system operated at a lower
injection capacity than expected. To keep the
capacity as high as possible, juttering heads
were installed on each well. The juttering
procedure involved pouring a dilute acid solution
into the well, then alternately opening and
closing the valves on the juttering head as the air
pressure in the well increased. This practice
moved water up and down within the well,
causing the release of iron particles and biomass
from the well screen and gravel pack.
Several attempts were made with split spoon
sampling devices to retrieve intact samples from
the subsurface soils. However, because of the
large size of the gravel present in the
subsurface, only partial (disturbed) samples were
retrieved. Those samples did not provide
reliable information about the concentration of
free phase coal tar actually present in the
formation. EPA, therefore, determined that
accurately measuring the removal of 60 percent
of the free phase coal tar would not be possible,
EPA then changed the performance standard
through an ESD.
The original design called for the CROW process
to address the free phase coal tar at the MW-2
area as well. However, because of the expected
high cost of treating this area with CROW, EPA
decided to allow PP&L to remove the tar by
pumping which has been completed.
System failures involving the water heater,
fouling of the wells, conductivity and flow within
the formation and subsequent changes in the
performance standard, as well as in the methods
used to measure the performance of the system
extended the project by approximately six
months. The inability to measure performance
as designed required additional time to develop a
new measuring system and three additional pore
volumes to verify that the performance standard
was achieved.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
276
-------
Brodhead Creek Superfund Site
REFERENCES
1. Brodhead Creek Site Supplemental
Investigation Data, Prepared for PP&L by
Atlantic Environmental Services, Inc., June
25, 1993.
2. Explanation of Significant Differences, EPA
Regions, July 1994.
3. Field Sampling Plan and Groundwater
Monitoring Plan, Prepared for PP&L by, May
1994.
4. Guide to Documenting Cost and
Performance for Remediation Progress,
EPA-542-B-95-002, EPA March 1995.
5. Letter to James Villaume, PP&L Project
Manager, from Mark Moeller, About
Discontinuation of Operations at Brodhead
Creek, February 29,1996.
6. Operations and Maintenance Plan, Prepared
for PP&L by, May 1994.
7. Record of Decision, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3, March
1991.
8. Remedial Action Report, Prepared for PP&L
by, August 1996.
Preparation of the Analysis
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
277
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
278
-------
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri
279
-------
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Site Name:
Missouri Electric Works Superfund
Site
Location:
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Contaminants:
PCBs
- Detected in surface and
subsurface soils at levels as high as
58,000 mg/kg
-Areal extent of PCB
contamination at levels greater
than 10 mg/kg was estimated to be
6.8 acres
Period of Operation:
April 21 - June 1, 1997
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
John Reed
Terra Therm Environmental
Services
1077 Grogan's Mill Road
The Woodlands, TX 77380
(281) 296-1000
Additional Contacts:
Information not provided
Technology:
In situ thermal desorption
- 12 heater/vacuum wells installed
in a triangular pattern to a depth of
12 feet
- Each well equipped with an
insulated heating element; capacity
to inject 350 to 700 watts/square
foot at heater temperatures of 1600
to 1800°F
- Small surface heating pads placed
at the center of each triangle; vapor
seal constructed over entire test
area
- Particulate cyclone, Thermatrix
ES-125 flameless thermal oxidizer,
and carbon canisters
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD date: 9/28/90
- Demonstration Test Plan
approved 1/97
EPA Point of Contact:
Remedial Project Manager
Pauletta France-Isetts
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Ave
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7701
Waste Source: Leaks and spills
from storage of PCB waste oils
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 52 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate the
performance of in situ thermal
desorption to treat PCB-
contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Soil cleanup goal for PCBs - 2 mg/kg
DRE - 99.9999%
Results:
- PCB concentrations in all 94 soil samples taken during the demonstration were below the 2 mg/kg cleanup
goal; 83 of the samples were reported below the detection limit
- Results of stack testing showed that the DRE for PCBs was 99.9999998%, meeting the goal of 99.9999%
Cost:
- No costs were reported for the demonstration.
- The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for a full-scale application is between
$120 and $200 per cubic yard for "most standard sites."
280
-------
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the
Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site, Cape Girardeau, Missouri (continued)
)escription:
From 1953 until 1992, the Missouri Electric Works Inc. (MEW) operated a 6.4 acre site, located in an industrial
area in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. MEW sold, serviced, and maintained electric motors, transformers, and
transformer controls at this facility. Historical operations included salvaging transformer oil and materials from
old equipment; copper wire was sold and the transformer oil was filtered and reused. It was estimated that
28,000 gallons of oil were released at the site. The results of a Remedial Investigation (RI), conducted between
September 1989 and March 1990, showed PCBs in the surface and subsurface soils (as high as 58,000 mg/kg in
soils found on site and 2,030 mg/kg in off-site soils). The areal extent of PCB concentrations in the soil that
were greater than 10 mg/kg was estimated to be 295,000 square feet (ft2) or 6.8 acres. A Record of Decision
(ROD), signed in 1990, specified excavation of PCB-contaminated soil followed by incineration, and extraction
and treatment of groundwater. However, the MEW PRP Steering Committee proposed in situ thermal
desorption of the soil, and an Explanation of Significant Differences (BSD) was issued for this site in January
1995 which included thermal desorption as an acceptable process for treating site soils. In January 1997, EPA
and MDNR accepted a Demonstration Test Plan for this technology.
TerraTherm's in situ thermal desorption (ISTD) technology was demonstrated at MEW to treat subsurface soil
contamination in an area near a former PCB storage pad. The objectives of the demonstration were to clean
soils to below cleanup levels and achieve a destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) of greater than 99.9999%
for PCBs. Twelve heater/vacuum wells were installed in a triangular pattern, spaced 5 ft apart. A vapor seal
was constructed over the entire test area to insulate and reduce heat loss, and to seal the surface of the test area
against vapor emissions. The MU-125 mobile process unit used for the demonstration was equipped with a
particulate cyclone, a Thermatrix ES-125 flameless thermal oxidizer, and two carbon canisters in series. Three
distinct temperature phases were recorded during the heating process. During the third (superheating) phase
soil temperatures rose to over 1000°F. The vendor used this data to estimate that about 50% of the total soil
volume reached a temperature of over 1100°F. The results of soil samples taken after completion of the 42-day
demonstration showed that the concentration of PCBs in all samples was below the 2 mg/kg cleanup goal and
that PCB concentrations were below the detection limit in the majority of samples. Results of stack testing
showed that the DRE for PCBs was 99.9999998%, meeting the goal of 99.9999%.
The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for a full-scale application is between
$120 and $200 per cubic yard for "most standard sites." According to the RPM, the Missouri Electric Works
Steering Committee has retained another experienced vendor to perform the full-scale work at the Missouri
Electric Works site. The vendor submitted a lower cost proposal than TerraTherm.
281
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
In Situ Thermal Desorption at the Missouri Electric Works Superfund Site
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Summary Information 11,2,4.5.61
From 1953 until 1992, the Missouri Electric Works Inc. (MEW)
operated a 6.4 acre site, located in an industrial area in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri. MEW sold, serviced, and maintained
electric motors, transformers, and transformer controls at this
facility. More than 16,000 transformers have been repaired or
scrapped at the facility. Historical operations included salvaging
transformer oil and materials from old equipment; copper wire
was sold and the transformer oil was filtered and reused. During
the oil recovery process, approximately 90% of the oil was
recovered while the remainder was spilled or leaked onto the
ground. In addition, solvents were used to clean electrical
equipment, and spills and disposal of solvents are believed to
have occurred at the site.
In October 1984, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) inspected the site and discovered a number of 55-gallon
drums of waste transformer oil. It was estimated that 28,000
gallons of oil were released at the site; about 5,000 gallons of
drummed waste oil were removed from the site. In November
1984, EPA conducted a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
inspection of the site and noted several violations for the storage
of PCS waste oils. Two soil samples taken during the inspection
showed PCB concentrations of 310 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) and 21,000 mg/kg. Further investigations performed by
EPA between October 1985 and June 1987 confirmed PCB
contamination in the surface and subsurface soils, and in the
drainage pathways. The results of a Remedial Investigation (RI),
conducted between September 1989 and March 1990, showed
PCBs in the surface and subsurface soils (as high as 58,000
mg/kg in soils found on site and 2,030 mg/kg in off-site soils).
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the
groundwater (as high as 320 milligrams per liter); no PCBs were
detected in the groundwater. The RI also indicated that PCBs
had migrated off site through storm water drainage areas onto
surrounding properties. The areal extent of PCB concentrations
in the soil that were greater than 10 mg/kg was estimated to be
295,000 square feet (ft2) or 6.8 acres.
A Record of Decision (ROD), signed in 1990, specified
excavation of PCB-contaminated soil followed by incineration,
and extraction and treatment of groundwater. In August 1994* a
Consent Decree (CD) between EPA and the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) was approved by the federal district
court to design the remedy and clean up the soil under EPA
supervision. According to the RPM, a group of non-settling
parties appealed the CD entry because they had not been allowed
to intervene. The eighth circuit court of appeals agreed with the
non-settling parties, vacated the CD entry and, after allowing the
non-settling parties to intervene, approved the CD during August
1996. Although the non-settling parties again appealed entry of
the CD, the eighth circuit court upheld the district courts
decision and the consent decree became effective during March
1998. The MEW PRP Steering Committee proposed in situ
thermal desorption of the soil. An Explanation of Significant
Differences (BSD) was issued for this site in January 1995 which
included thermal desorption as an acceptable process for treating
site soils. In January 1997, EPA and MDNR accepted a
Demonstration Test Plan for this technology.
The objectives of the demonstration were to clean soils to below
cleanup levels and achieve a destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) of greater than 99.9999% for PCBs. The demonstration
was conducted at a former PCB storage pad, where PCB
concentrations were reported as high as 20,000 mg/kg. Soils in
the demonstration area were analyzed to determine pre-test soil
PCB concentrations. PCBs were found at depths of up to 10 feet
(ft) below ground surface (bgs), with the highest concentrations
found at 0 to 4 ft bgs. The results are presented in Table 1.
CERCLIS ID Number: MOD980965982
Lead: EPA Region 7
Timeline H. 21
October 1984 - June 1987
September 1989 - March 1990
September 28, 1990
August 29, 1994
August 14, 1996
March 3, 1998
January 1995
January 1997
April 21 - June 1, 1997
Site investigation
performed
RI performed
ROD signed
Consent Degree approved
by Federal District Court
BSD issued
Demonstration Test Plan
approved
Demonstration performed
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
282
-------
•MEW Site
Table 1 - Soil Sample Results Summary, Cape Girardeau, MO [3]
(see Figure 1 for locations)
Pre-Demo Soil Sampling Results
Post-Demo Soil Sampling Results
ATASLab
Result PCB
Concentration
TW-1 S1-A
31-B
S2-A
S2-B
S5
36
TW-3 S1-A
51 -B
S2-A
S2-B
55
SB
TW-3T SI
52
S3
54
55
S6
S7
38
S9
510
TW-4 S1-A
31 -B
S2-A
32-B
SS
36
. TW-6 S1-A
S1-B
S2-A
52-B
S3-A
33-e
TW4T S1
32
S3
54
55
56
S7
38
59
510
TW-7 S1,A
S1-B
S2-A
S2-B
53-A
S3-B
TW-10 S1-A
S1-B
S2-A
S2-B
SS
56
0.0-2.0
2.04.4
3.4-5.4
544.1
83-10.0
10.0-12.0
03-23
2.2-4.2
4343
63-83
83-10.0
10.0-12.0
0.04.5
0.5-1.0
T.0-2.0
2.0-4.0
4.04.0
6.0-8.0
8.0-10.0
10.0-12.0
12.0-14.0
14.0-16.0
03-2.2
23-43
434.2
6343
8.2-10.0
10.0-12.0
02-22
2.2-43
4.243
634.2
83-10.2
103-12.2
0.04.5
0.5-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-4.0
4.04.0
6.04.0
8.0-10.0
10.0-12.0
12.0-14.0
14.0-16,0
0.2-2.2
2.2-43
4343
6.243
83-10.2
10.2-123
0.2-23
23-43
4.243
6.24.2
83-10.0
10.0-12.0
AS Lab Result
PCB
Concentration
1S90 TW-13 51 03-23 253
357 S2 2.2-4.2 233
<05 S3 4343 0.099
dXS 54 6343 NA
NA S5 8.2-103 <0.50
13.5- 36 103-123 <0.50
PTW-1
PTW-2
2190 TW-14 51 03-23 4100
595 52 23-43 1060
NO S3 4343 276
NO 54 6343 67.5
6.37- 55 83-103 3.98
4.34' 56 103-123
-------
This report covers the results of the in situ thermal desorption
demonstration for PCB-contaminated soils conducted April 21 -
June 1, 1997. A total of 52 cubic yards (yd3) of soil was treated
during this demonstration.
Factors that Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment H. 61
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics for this
technology and the values measured for each.
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Classification:
Brown clay with traces of silt,
overlain by a thin layer of top
soil
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size
Distribution:
Moisture Content:
pH:
Oil and Grease:
Bulk Density:
Lower Explosive Limit:
2-9% sand, 68-81% silt,
17-23% clay
12-28%
5.3-8.0
Soil soaked with oil in
transformer storage areas
115-125 pcf
N/A
Treatment Technology Description
In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) simultaneously applies heat
and vacuum to soils to extract vapors which are collected and
sent to a mobile processing unit for further treatment prior to
release to the atmosphere. According to the vendor
(TerraTherm), a typical ISTD process uses thermal blankets
(modular blankets that are 8 ft x 20 ft) placed on the soil surface
to treat shallow contamination and thermal wells (heater/vacuum
wells) placed in the ground in triangular patterns to treat deeper
contamination (>3 ft bgs). The thermal well process was
demonstrated at MEW to treat subsurface soil contamination in
an area near a former PCB storage pad.
Figure 1 shows the layout of the thermal heater wells used at
MEW. As shown in Figure 1, twelve heater/vacuum wells were
installed in a triangular pattern, spaced 5 ft apart. Each well
included 12-ft long nichrome wire heating element threaded
through ceramic insulation. The insulated heating element was
placed within a 2.5-inch (in) diameter stainless steel pipe and
sealed at both ends to create a "heater can" (to isolate the heating
elements from fluids and vapors during operation). The heater
can, in turn, was enclosed with a 4-in diameter stainless steel
' MEW Site
slotted liner. Each well was completed to a depth of 12 ft in a
sand-filled annulus designed to improve the inflow of vapors
from the soil to the well. Heat from the thermal wells was
transferred to the soil by radiation and thermal conduction.
According to the vendor, thermal conduction is estimated to
account for 80% of the heat transfer. Vacuum was applied to the
wells to remove soil vapors from the subsurface.
To compensate for heat losses to the lower soils and the
atmosphere, the thermal wells were designed such that the lower
2 ft of the well and the upper 1 ft of the well delivered more
power (57% more) than the middle portion of the well. Each
well had the capacity to inject 350 to 700 watts/ft2 at heater
temperatures of 1600 to 1800°F. Surface heating pads (18 in2)
were placed at the center of each triangle to assist in treating the
soils between the wells and operated at 500 watts/ft2.
A vapor seal was constructed over the entire test area to insulate
and reduce heat loss, and to seal the surface of the test area
against vapor emissions. A vacuum frame structure was
constructed around the well area. Rectangular pieces of steel
shim stock (4 ft x 20 ft) were fitted together to cover the test area
and were welded to the wells at the point of penetration. A 16-in
thick layer of vermiculite insulation was placed over the steel
plate and covered with an impermeable silicone tarpaulin, which
extended 5 ft beyond the edges of the treatment area.
To monitor temperatures during operation, fifteen thermocouple
tubes were installed at locations roughly in the center of each of
the 13 triangular areas between the thermal wells and at two
central locations within the treatment area (see Figure 1). Each
1-in steel tube was installed to a depth of 7 ft and was sealed at
the bottom.
Two pressure monitoring wells (PW-1 and PW-2), located near
the center of the treatment area (see Figure 1), were used to
monitor the subsurface vacuum. Each well was perforated pipe
completed with 1 ft of sand at a depth of 6 ft and sealed to the
surface with bentonite grout.
To control surface run-off, a 1-ft deep trench was dug around the
perimeter of the test area and equipped with a sump pump.
The MU-125 mobile process unit was equipped with a particulate
cyclone, aThermatrix ES-125 flameless thermal oxidizer, and
two carbon canisters in series. Auxiliary equipment included the
control room housing, a programmable logic control system,
heater controllers, and a PC-based data acquisition system.
Operation H. 31
On April 21, 1997, the well heaters were energized by increasing
power to the 12 injectors over a three-hour period to an initial
rate of 500 watts/ft2. Power was then increased in all injectors
until the maximum operating temperature (as measured by the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
284
-------
-MEW Site
Vacuum Frame 16 f*''
Structure '
4.
PT*-8 PTW7 "^ l6
' J. +
' T
IP™" '
-.^
+ ,
...
13
Legend:
®8 Thermal Well
A Thermocouple Location
-j- Post-Heat Sample Location
Q Surface Heating Pad Location
PW-1
.
© Pressure Monitor Well
Figure 1: Left, position of thermal heater wells and thermocouples. Right, post-heat sample locations. Well spacing = 5 ft [3]
thermocouples) reached 1600°F. Within 48 hours of the start of
the demonstration, two changes in operating conditions were
observed that indicated that the soil permeability had increased
as a result of the heating process: 1) the vacuum at the heater
wells decreased from 25 to 5 in of water; and 2) the vacuum at
the pressure monitoring wells increased from 1 to 4.5 in of water.
Following the increase in soil permeability, the surface heating
pads were energized at 500 watts/ft2. During the 42-day
demonstration period, the flow rate was maintained between 50
and 70 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) with a well vacuum
of 3 to 5 in of water.
Temperature was measured every 12 hours during the test.
When the upper 1 ft of soil reached 900°F, the power to the
surface heating pads was reduced to avoid excessive corrosion of
the vapor seal.
Three distinct temperature phases were recorded during the
heating process. During the first phase (250 hrs of operation),
soil temperatures rose to the boiling point of water (212°F).
During the second phase, water boiling occurred and the
temperature remained near 212°F. During the third phase, also
called the superheating phase (630 hours to end of operation),
soil temperatures rose to over 1000°F. A soil temperature of
900°F was measured at the center of all triangles and a
temperature of 1100°F was measured at the center of the
treatment area (thermocouple K); the vendor used this data to
estimate that about 50% of the total soil volume reached a
temperature of over 1100°F.
Listed below are the key operating parameters for this technology
and the values measured for each.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
285
-------
•MEW Site
Operating Parameters
Vacuum:
Air Flow:
Heating Power:
Soil Temperature:
3-5 in of water
50-70 scfin
350-500 watts/ft2
212°Fto>1100°F
Performance Information [1.2. 61
The site cleanup level identified in the ROD was 2 mg/kg. Site
soils contaminated with PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to 10 mg/kg at depths from 0 to 4 feet below ground
surface, and at concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg at depths
greater than 4 feet below ground surface, were to be treated using
thermal treatment. The PCB concentrations at which treatment
was to occur was variable because the greatest risk to human
health is due to direct contact. A DRE of greater than 99.9999%
for PCBS was specified for stack emissions. The PCB cleanup
goals represent a lifetime cancer risk of 2 x 10'5.
Following the completion of the 42-day demonstration, 94
samples were collected from 13 core boring locations as shown
on Figure 1 (depths of about 10 ft except in the center, PTW-6,
which was 16 ft deep). Samples were analyzed for PCBs,
porosity, permeability, and soil texture. The results of the PCB
analyses are presented in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, the concentration of PCBs in all samples
was below the 2 mg/kg cleanup goal. PCB concentrations were
below the detection limit of 0.33 mg/kg in 83 of the 94 samples.
For the remaining samples, PCB concentrations ranged from
0.036 mg/kg to 0.302 mg/kg. According to the RPM, a lateral
migration demonstration test was conducted adjacent to an area
previously treated by thermal blankets. The test areas were
overlapped 6 inches. Pre-test sampling typically indicated PCB
concentrations less than 33 micrograms per kilogram; two
samples indicated PCB concentrations of approximately 2 mg/kg.
Post-test sampling indicated no significant increase in PCB
concentrations in the area which had been non-detect prior to the
test and a reduction in the PCB concentrations in those areas
which had detectable concentrations prior to the test.
In addition, four composite samples were collected and analyzed
for PCDD and PCDF. The "vertical" composite sample
consisted of soil from 0-8 ft at the center of the treatment area.
Three "areal" composite samples were collected: 0-2 ft; 2-4 ft;
and 4-6 ft (from the locations of PTW-3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10).
PCDD and PCDF were not detected in analyses for the vertical
composite samples. The areal composites were 0.00284 mg/kg
toxic equivalent (TEQ) for 0-2 ft; 0.00684 mg/kg TEQ for 2-4 ft;
and 0.0033 mg/kg TEQ for 4-6 ft.
Results of stack testing showed that the DRE for PCBs was
99.9999998%, exceeding the goal of 99.9999%. According to
the vendor, a total of 0.10 mg of PCB was emitted from the stack
(from an estimated 40 kg of PCB in the treated area). Details of
the DRE calculation are presented in Appendix A.
Porosity in post-heat soil samples was reported to have increased
from approximately 30% of pore volume to 40%. The horizontal
air permeability increased from 3 x 10'3 millidarcies (md) to 50
md; vertical air permeability increased from 1 x 10'3 md to 30
md. According to the vendor, reasons for increased porosity and
permeability included fracturing, clay desiccation, removal of
organics from the soil, and evaporation of in situ soil moisture.
Changes in soil textures also were observed. In areas exposed to
temperatures of at least 1100° F, the soil solidified (siltstone)
and an iron oxide coating was observed. According to the
vendor, the solidification may have occurred by sintering silicate
materials, particularly clay materials.
Performance Data Quality fl. 61
PCB soil samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8080. PCB
concentrations in stack emissions were analyzed using EPA
Method 680. PCDD and PCDF samples were analyzed using
EPA Method 8280. Each analytical procedure was performed in
compliance with applicable EPA protocols. Each data package
contained chain-of-custody documents, analytical report forms,
site-specific quality assurance/quality control, sample preparation
chronologies and raw material data. Data validation reports
reviewed each sample analysis for compliance with method-
specific and project-specific QA/QC requirements in accordance
with the "Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organic
Analyses", EPA 1988. Based on the review of the data packages,
the analytical data were judged to be representative of site
conditions at the time the samples were obtained.
Cost Information Fl. 61
TerraTherm used the results of the demonstration to project the
cost for a full-scale application. TerraTherm estimated that the
cost for a full-scale application is between $120 to $200 per cubic
yard for "most standard sites." According to the RPM, factors
that could affect actual costs include the moisture content of the
soil, the cost of electricity required to operate the system, and the
extent and depth of the contamination which affects the number
of wells required and the depth of the wells.
Observations and Lessons Learned
In situ thermal desorption reduced PCB concentrations in soils at
the MEW site from levels as high as 20,000 mg/kg to below the
cleanup level of 2 mg/kg. PCB concentrations were reduced to
below detection limits (0.33 mg/kg) in 83 of the 94 post-
treatment samples.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
286
-------
-MEW Site
The in situ thermal desorption technology achieved a PCB DRE
of 99.9999998%, exceeding the goal of 99.9999%.
The heating process increased both soil porosity and
permeability. Soil porosity increased from 30% of pore volume
to 40%; permeability increased from 1 x 10'3 to 30 md.
According to the vendor, the mechanisms for increases in these
parameters included fracturing, clay desiccation, removal of
organic content, and evaporation of in situ moisture.
Requests for proposals (RFPs) for the soil remediation activities
at the Missouri Electric Works Site were issued during April
1998. Terra Therm submitted a proposal for the work.
However, according to the RPM, the cost associated with their
proposal was not the lowest and the Missouri Electric Works
Steering Committee has retained another experienced vendor
whose cost proposal for the remediation effort was less to
perform the work at the Missouri Electric Works site.
According to the RPM, demonstration tests should not be
conducted during the winter months. In addition, the results of
such tests should be viewed as the final arm of research and
development. The RPM noted that full-scale applications often
identify problems not considered or confronted in a laboratory or
pilot-scale test.
Contact Information
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Pauletta France-Isetts*
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: (913)551-7701
State Contact:
Donald Van Dyke
Missouri DNR
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: (573)751-3176
In situ Thermal Desorption Vendor:
John Reed
TerraTherm Environmental Services Inc.
10077 Grogan's Mill Rd.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Telephone: (281) 296-1000
(800) 500-5288
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. Cost and Performance Report. Missouri Electric Works,
Cape Girardeau, Missouri. 1998. Prepared by Terra
Therm Environmental Services Inc.
2. EPA. 1990. Record of Decision. Missouri Electric Works,
Cape Giradeau, Missouri.
3. Putting the Heat on Contaminants: Three Case Studies
Using In Situ Thermal Methods. The Hazardous Waste
Consultants. July/August 1998.
4. National Priority Site. Narrative at Listing, Missouri
Electric Works, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. February 21,
1990.
5. EPA Region 7. Missouri Electric Works, Cape Girardeau,
Missouri. National Priority List Facts. July 8, 1996.
6. Pauletta France-Isetts. EPA Region 7. 1998. Comments
on Draft Cost and Performance Report. September 22.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
287
-------
MEW Site
APPENDIX A
DRE CALCULATION FOR THE ISTD DEMONSTRATION AT MEW
The following was excerpted from the TerraTherm Report (Ref 1.)
DESTRUCTION/REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
The overall effectiveness of the ISTD remediation process can be evaluated from the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of the
treatment system. The components used to calculate the PCB destruction and removal efficiency for the thermal well demonstration
at Cape Girardeau were as follows:
1. The pre-treatment and post-treatment calculations for the mass of PCBs in soil was calculated based on the arithmetic mean of
the pre-treatment soil concentration in the 0-4 ft depth range within the well array area;
2. The mass of PCBs removed was calculated by subtracting the post-treatment PCB mass (essentially zero) from the pre-
treatment PCB mass;
3. The mass of PCBs emitted from the treatment process was calculated from the stack test results, including the emission rate
and stack-test duration to arrive at a flow-weighted total mass;
4. PCB destruction and removal efficiency (%) for the system operation was calculated as follows:
PCB
removed
Where DRE is the destruction and removal efficiency percentage, PCBn
PCBs discharged.
,ovcdis the mass of PCBs treated, and PCBeraittedis the mass of
Soil Sampling & Air Monitoring Data for DRE Calculation
Pre-treatment and post-treatment soil samples were collected to determine the quantity of PCBs extracted from the soil during
Thermal Well heating and to demonstrate effective removal of PCBs from soils at a depth up to 10 ft below the original surface
grade. Pre- and post-treatment soil analytical results were reported directly by the designated laboratory and are summarized in
Table 1 and Figure 1. Soil concentration summaries were produced directly from the laboratory report data to illustrate PCB profiles
before and after treatment.
A stack test for PCBs and breakdown products was conducted during 28 hours of system operation on May 11-12, 1997. Stack
sampling for PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs was conducted in accordance with procedures provided in EPA Method 23. Stack sample
analyses were conducted as prescribed by EPA method 23 for PCDDs/PCDFs and modified EPA Method 680 for PCB homologues.
Thermal Well Demonstration DRE Calculation
Maximum detected concentration in the upper 4 ft of the central triangle was 19,900 mg/kg, and the arithmetic mean was 4,600
mg/kg. All post-treatment soil samples collected in this interval were determined to contain less than 0.033 mg/kg, which is the low
level detection limit reported for EPA Method 8080A by the laboratory. Therefore, the pre-treatment soil mass is the PCBreraoved.
Based on a mean PCB concentration in the upper 4 ft of the treated area (4,600 mg/kg), a soil density of 43.2 kg/ft3 (RI Report, Earth
Technologies Corp, July 1990), and a conservative treated soil volume of 200 ft3 (approximately 4.6 triangular patterns to a depth of
4 ft) the mass of PCBs treated was determined to be at least 40 kg.
The total PCB detected in the stack sample was 400 nanograms. The total volume of effluent passed through the XAD resin during
the test was 24.5 cubic meters (m3). The flow determined by EPA Method 2C within the stack during sampling was 123 standard
cubic feet per minute (SCFM). The total mass of PCBemi[ted during the 28-hour stack test was calculated to be 0.0955 mg.
The DRE, as presented above, was calculated by subtracting 0.0000955 grams (g) PCBemitted from 40,000 g PCBrcmoved, divided by
j, and multiplied by 100% for a DRE of 99.9999998% for the thermal well demonstration at the Cape Girardeau Site.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
288
------- |